Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:52:48 -0400 From: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer) To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda), chat@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups Message-ID: <64677.938371968@noop.colo.erols.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:30 PDT." <199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote in message ID
<199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>:
> [CC redirect to -chat, users left intact]
> Should a BOF at BSDCon be asked for to discuss these issues? I think
> it would make for a hot and heated BOF with lots of understanding
> by both the ISP and user community about where the current state of the
> art is headed with respect to filtering, redirection, and other tools
> being applied to combat the spam problem.
> I know there is one talk by jmb about spam, the past 5 years or something
> along that line already. But this is such a hot topic that I am not sure
> if he is going to get into what is currently being done, and what some of
> the plans are.
>
> I also think that the open forum of a BOF would allow the implementers,
> people like Paul Vixie, jmb, you, myself, etc to get a lot of input from
> the general user community at large.
I think an anti-spam BOF (or BOFH? :) ) would be a great idea. Its
clear that this is a very touchy subject (heh, yes, I read NANAE :) ),
and it would definately be illuminating for both customers and
providers.
Jordan, is there a BOF organizer for FreeBSD CON? Or is it just a
organize it as you go structure? Do we even have rooms reserved for
the evenings where BOFs could be held?
(And, no, I'm not volunteering :) )
> This is what I was alluding to when I wrote:
> ipfw add 10251 divert ${SMARTRELAYHANDLER} tcp from any to any 25 out via lnc
> 1
> It's a layer 3 redirection of outbound SMTP attempts that would in effect
> force the mail through our smart host without the customer even knowing
> that we did it other than by header examination. At this point the
> idea is just that, an idea. We will implement it if the current policy
> does not solve the problem. This is one of the reasons we prefer running
> a *BSD boarder router over a Cisco, we can do these things easily.
Unfortunately, I don't know a BSD box that can handle aggregating OC3
or higher :( You fast run into the PCI bus wall. That and our routing
ppl sorta like Cisco, for some unknown reason.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?64677.938371968>