nanog mailing list archives
Re: botted hosts
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:27:02 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
[In the message entitled "Re: botted hosts" on Apr 4, 1:10, Sean Donelan writes:]On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:That means that if just the ISPs that we have identified as having "dynamically assigned" addresses were to install port 25 blocking, more than 1/3 of the spam would vanish.Does port 25 blocking actually make a difference? Any public data from before and after? Or does it just annoy people, cause problems and not fix anything?Blocking port 25 has been a good idea for 8 years. Many ISPs have already done it (some better than others), and it absolutely does fix things.
just to be clear, from which 'customer' types are you asking to have tcp/25 blocked? Dial? DSL? Cable-modem? Dedicated? can your providers go block tcp/25 from your links today?
Current thread:
- Re: The power of default configurations, (continued)
- Re: The power of default configurations Jon Lewis (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Eric A. Hall (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Jon Lewis (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Eric A. Hall (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Jon Lewis (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Eric A. Hall (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations just me (Apr 08)
- Re: The power of default configurations Eric A. Hall (Apr 08)
- Re: The power of default configurations Mark Andrews (Apr 06)
- Message not available
- Re: botted hosts John Dupuy (Apr 04)
- Message not available
- Re: botted hosts John Dupuy (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Dean Anderson (Apr 05)
- Re: botted hosts Simon Waters (Apr 05)
- Re: botted hosts Dean Anderson (Apr 05)