Now that the noise level (SQLSlammer) is down: It looks like AT&T put the finger back into the dike on this for now: You don't really want your customer service call center get flooded by two issues at once:
http://www.internet-magazine.com/news/view.asp?id=3110 On 1/24/2003 at 7:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In the good old days, when network engineers used VT100 terminals and 300 > baud (not bps) acoustic modems, ftp.uu.net enforced the requirement for > "valid" reverse and forward DNS entries for anonymous FTP access. It was the single most important source for files on the Internet, along with maybe SIMTEL-20 : you couldn't get around it, no matter how hard you tried. Fast forward 10 years: would you even dare to put "HostnameLookups yes" into your Apache config? Not if you don't feel like having well-populated DNS caches useful to you for some other purpose, you don't. A purely operational configuration choice. > Doesn't anyone else find it funny when people scream that ISPs should > block ports and shoot people with misconfigured systems; yet when > an ISP actually does enforce even a modest requirement; people start > screaming how unfair or stupid that ISP is for doing that. We sure all hate tracerouting through APNIC space, and seeing up to 12 routers in a row without reverse DNS - to the point where one could believe that noone in Korea ever heard of the in-addr.arpa zone : Apart from AT&T having the "left hand/right hand" (hypocritic) problem with being service providers to spammers on one hand, and aching under the receiving load of it on the other: Good intentions, but failed to even do a basic Google search to see how other people fared with this, let alone running a test and labelling incoming mails rather than blocking them. Now to toss a bit more oil into the fire: "unknown.level3.net" , anyone ? And remember: it's not neglience, it's Level3's secret "handshake", telling you that the block in question should be filtered by you at any cost :)