nanog mailing list archives
RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
From: dlr () bungi com (Dave Rand)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:44:07 -0700
[In the message entitled "RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden" on Apr 29, 15:32, "Miller, Mark" writes:]
Unfortunately, a lot of static "business" DSL IP space is still on those lists and legitimate mail servers can get blocked. I usually use the DUL as a "white list" to negate hits on the traditional dnsbls since those are almost always stale.
We have worked very hard with the ISPs to ensure that legitimate static space isn't on the lists. We also do extensive amounts of work to ensure that isn't the case. You may be thinking of some other list, not the DUL. --
Current thread:
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden, (continued)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Apr 27)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Olsen, Jason (Apr 28)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 28)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dave Rand (Apr 29)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven J. Sobol (Apr 29)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dave Rand (Apr 29)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Miller, Mark (Apr 29)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven J. Sobol (Apr 29)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Mark Andrews (Apr 29)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven J. Sobol (Apr 29)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Miller, Mark (Apr 29)
- RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dave Rand (Apr 29)