Re: Relays, Blacklists, and Laws (was: spam-tools?)

• To: Anders Andersson < >
• From: Piet Beertema < >
• Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:09:15 +0200

    > >ORBS did not portscan. ORBS has tested mailservers which have been
    > >nomitated by third parties who had reasons to think those servers
    > >were open relays.
    > I agree in general, though a case could be made for not even
    > allowing the mere probing of port 25 on a host that is not
    > meant to receive mail
1) Having port 25 open is an implicit announcement of being
   open to receive mail. Whether the announcement has been
   made in public (through DNS) or not is irrelevant. The
   same holds for the physical mailbox at your door.
2) If port 25 is open for receiving internal mail and no more
   than that, then the "interface" to the outside world should
   block access to that port from outside. Failure to do so
   means that 1) applies.


	Piet

• Post To The List:

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Relays, Blacklists, and Laws (was: spam-tools?)
    • From: Clive D.W. Feather
  • Re: Relays, Blacklists, and Laws (was: spam-tools?)
    • From: Paul Wouters

• References:
  • Relays, Blacklists, and Laws (was: spam-tools?)
    • From: Anders Andersson