On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i keep hearing that, but am having a hard time finding supporting data.
Might see the stats from http://cbl.abuseat.org - by AS. Then compare
the stats on a non port 25 filtered network (they have stats by AS) to
stats on a network that is filt
Hmm, transaction id, security code, a 21 minute hold time with GoDaddy, and
two dozen Danica Patrick pictures and I am quickly realizing that this glue
is going to be much more costly than the ~$8 transfer fee.
-Ryan
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:3
> No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically.
>> i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for
>> consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely increase a
>> bit. but my guess, and i mean guess, is that the limiting parameter
>> could well be how many bots the pe
No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically.
Something on the lines of turning a firehose of petrol on a wildfire
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for
> consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely in
> The theory behind closing open relays, blocking port 25, etc., seems to
> be:
> (a) That will make it harder on spammers, and that will reduce spam --
> some of the spammers will find other other ways to inject spam, but
> some will just stop, OR
> (b) Eventually, we'll find technical solutions t
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:38:15PM +, deles...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Having worked in past @ 3 large ISPs with residential customer pools
> I can tell you we saw a very direct drop in spam issues when we
> blocked port 25.
No one is disputing that. Or, at least, I'm not disputing that. I'm
qu
Having worked in past @ 3 large ISPs with residential customer pools I can tell
you we saw a very direct drop in spam issues when we blocked port 25.
-jim
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-Original Message-
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17
On Sep 6, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Getting rid of the vast majority of open relays and open proxies didn't
>> solve the spam problem, but there'd be more ways to send spam if those
>> methods were still gen
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> Anti-spam is a never ending arms race.
That's really the question at hand here -- whether or not there's any
benefit to continuing the "never ending arms race" game. Some people
think there is. Others question whether anything is r
You have not specified what sort of settings you are using (PSK vs
CERTS, Algos , route based VPN etc)
However something along the following lines is working fine for me:
set ike gateway "**" address 172.16.250.1 Main outgoing-
interface "ethernet0/8" preshare "**" propos
> With all the different webmail systems, it seems unlikely to me (though I
> definitely wouldn't say impossible) that bots are spamming through your
> webmail (unless you work for gmail, hotmail, etc. and are an attractive
> enough target that it made sense to code a bot to automate utilizing y
11 matches
Mail list logo
