From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Feb 4 21:33:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA28613 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:33:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28605 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:33:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA28483; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:32:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:32:19 -0500 (EST) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: jack cc: Bill Fumerola , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/9864: make rblcheck use relay.orbs.org instead of dorkslayers.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, jack wrote: > You're absolutely right. However, complaints to uu.net, psi.net, > netcom.{com,net,ca}, att, mci, etc. have not reduced the amount > of spam I received from those sources in the least. Blocking > their dialup ports has reduced it by much more than 50%. And as someone with an address on 99% of all spamdiscs out there, I concur. I also receive postmaster mail here, so I get even more... Here we see about 60% of spam coming from the dialup ports of large providers. Sending mail to their abuse departments does nothing. If it's a smaller provider, I generally get a nice note back stating the account was cancelled. > It's not a matter of passing judgment on the type of connection > someone has, it's a matter of what keeps that crap out of my > mailbox. Again, you are correct. Some software out there now does a "dictionary" attack, er, delivery where it tries tens of thousands of usernames that result in as many bounces. If I can block this abuse (and when it brings your mailserver to it's knees, that is abuse) I will do it. A host with a dynamic IP has no business sending mail unless it's through a relay. I think you'll find: 1) large providers do not even give out static addresses 2) smaller ones (like us) have those in a seperate block from the dynamic pools, making it easy for someone to leave the static IPs alone. There's also some sense in doing it by name. Blocking *.da.uu.net will not hurt static IP customers. If you have a static IP, you are most likely going to be named something.blah.com with no special naming convention that identifies you as a dial access user. Charles > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst > jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc. > Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key. > PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD > enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message