On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 at 5:14pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What about http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/gauthier.html
>
> After seeing that presentation, I wondered if an ISP could get
> away with something similar. Eric has the advantage of being
> the monopoly service provider for the dorms.
I kno
On 2004-02-13T15:30-0600, Ejay Hire wrote:
) You could use AOL's tactic and transparent proxy all
) outbound port 25 traffic. Then it'd be a relatively simple
) matter to add mr. spammer's ip to a hosts.deny. If you were
You may also need to filter inbound packets with a source port of 25, or
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> > somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> > traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> > th
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> > somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> > traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> > that you're overlooking the
Leo Vegoda wrote:
If you block the entire account then the user can't use the account
to download the updates your Abuse Team will responsibly want to
point him/her at. If you want to lose the customer then that's your
business. If you want to keep the customer, helping them fix their
mistakes is
You wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> that you're overlooking the simple solution. Blocking th
s.
-Ejay
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dan Ellis
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:55 AM
> To: Andy Dills
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: SMTP relaying policies for Commercial ISP
customers...?
>
>
on Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:35:17PM -0500, Andy Dills wrote:
> For any responsible ISP, the problem is the spam coming into your
> mailservers, not leaving. As long as you quickly castrate the people who
> do relay spam through you, you're not going to have an egress spam
> problem.
I beg to diffe
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Ellis wrote:
> The issue we have as a dynamic IP broadband provider is that it's a
> royal pain to shutdown a user - especially in regards to just mail.
> Lets say we have a spammer and a script detects it. We then have to
> track him back to the MAC address of the modem,
gt; Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:35 PM
> To: Dan Ellis
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SMTP relaying policies for Commercial ISP customers...?
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Ellis wrote:
>
> > 1) Residential Policy: Enable SMTPAUTH and disallow relaying
>
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Ellis wrote:
> 1) Residential Policy: Enable SMTPAUTH and disallow relaying
> unless the customer has a valid username/password. If you're not paying
> for a mailbox, you don't get to relay outbound. This should not break
> anything except those residential accou
11 matches
Mail list logo
