Meant to send this to the list.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
>>that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
>>concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
>>same
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:22 45PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
>> multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
>> a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
>> net, and no one would question an a
All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
net, and no one would question an architecture like that
My impression is that this is about a c
On Jun 20, 2011, at 5:52 27PM, John Levine wrote:
>> They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
>> that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
>> concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
>> same reason and I don't really *th
2011/6/21 Tony Finch :
> Spamhaus. And none of your complaints apply to them.
Oh really ? So the blame is to throw at Google Docs administrators for
beeing blacklisted (on the SBL, which should contain only "verified
spam source", thus implying discussion with the service manager) ? And
BTW, who i
On 6/20/11 9:26 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade,
that'll be one more proof of spamhaus&co. uselessness and negative
impact on the Internet's best practices.
I do believe in this one paragraph, we know who the real shithead is.
Noted and
On 20 Jun 2011, at 23:09, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
>
> But if you can point me to any serious organisation
> providing a real value-added service maintained by real professionals,
> those who performs thorough checks _before_ putting a legitimaite mail
> server in a blacklist, then i'd enjoy benchm
Seth,
2011/6/21 Seth Mos :
> We use the black lists for scoring spam messages, but we never outright block
> messages. I was not implying that blacklists are not useful at all. I just
> see things in shades of grey over black and white.
Thanks for pointing this out : I was whining about amateur
2011/6/20 John Levine :
> Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on greylisting.
URL ?
> Greylisting is useful, but anyone who thinks it's a substitute for
> DNSBLs has never run a large mail system.
You're right, greylisting on a large system may not be efficient as it
won't block everything
2011/6/20 David Miller :
> OK. I'll bite. What particular "internet best practices" are Spamhaus
> trampling on?
RBL's are often seen as an "easy solution" to a quite complex problem.
Most mail administrators are relying on them so blindly that some may
forget to evaluate an RBL's pertinence reg
Op 20 jun 2011, om 23:55 heeft John Levine het volgende geschreven:
>> An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is
>> incredibly useful.
>
>> Using a greylisting system is equally effective without the black
>> list part.
>
> Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on g
> An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is
>incredibly useful.
>Using a greylisting system is equally effective without the black
> list part.
Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on greylisting.
Greylisting is useful, but anyone who thinks it's a substitute for
DN
>They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
>that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
>concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
>same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason.
No legitimate mailer needs m
> My feeling is that (paraphrasing here) "we might get blocked
> occasionally" and "we need this many IPs on our MTAs because they
> can't handle the load" are *not* legitimate reasons for requesting
> so many addresses.
It is definitely not your job to help spammers evade blocking. If
someone's
2011/6/20 Tony Finch :
> An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is incredibly
> useful.
Greylisting and reverse-DNS checks alone blocks 95-98% with no impact
on mail sent from properly maintained mail servers. RBLs are only
usefull for lazy mailadmins, and to save some ne
On 6/20/2011 11:26 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
< SNIP />
Unless many contiguous blocks are assigned as different objects : a
RBL must NOT presume of one end-user's inetnum unless it has been
cathed doing nasty things AND didn't comply to abuse@ requests.
An RBL *can* do whatever an RBL wants to d
Op 20 jun 2011, om 23:24 heeft Tony Finch het volgende geschreven:
> On 20 Jun 2011, at 16:26, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
>>
>> But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade, that'll be
>> one more proof of spamhaus &co. uselessness and negative impact on the
>> Internet's best pr
On 20 Jun 2011, at 16:26, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
>
> But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade, that'll be
> one more proof of spamhaus &co. uselessness and negative impact on the
> Internet's best practices.
An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives i
On 6/20/11 5:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
>
> They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
> that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
> concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
> same reason and I don't really *think* it's
2011/6/20 Leo Bicknell :
> In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:01:24AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>> I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
>> (specifically) justify their request for the discontiguous blocks.
That's like asking them to state the obvious...
> Or,
In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:01:24AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
> (specifically) justify their request for the discontiguous blocks.
Or, just don't offer it. Make them fit in one block, giving them
3 months to renu
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:26:30AM -0400, Steve Richardson wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> > Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested a
> > "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can only think of one
> > r
On 20/06/11 6:18 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Almost every customer I've dealt with who requested such a thing
eventually ended up having their contract terminated for spamming.
I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
(specifically) justify their request for the disconti
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Steve Richardson
wrote:
> We have a customer who, over the years, has amassed several small subnet
> assignments from us for their colo. They are an email marketer. They have
> requested these assignments in as many discontiguous netblocks as we can
> manage. Th
On 6/20/2011 9:52 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT, Steve Richardson said:
*definitely* concerns me. One thing they do say is that they need
several IPs per block to assign to their MTAs to handle such a large
amount of email (3 to 5 million per day). Being
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Steve Richardson wrote:
We have a customer who, over the years, has amassed several small subnet
assignments from us for their colo. They are an email marketer. They have
requested these assignments in as many discontiguous netblocks as we can
manage. They are now asking
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT, Steve Richardson said:
> *definitely* concerns me. One thing they do say is that they need
> several IPs per block to assign to their MTAs to handle such a large
> amount of email (3 to 5 million per day). Being primarily focused on
> layers 1 through 4, I don't
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 -0400
Steve Richardson wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher
> wrote:
> > Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they
> > requested a "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can
> > only think of one reas
Hi Jason,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested a
> "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can only think of one
> reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. They are concerned
> tha
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
> On 06/20/2011 08:13 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to know is whether there is a
>> legitimate use for so many addresses in discontiguous networks besides
>> spam? I am trying my best to give them the benefit of the doubt here,
In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:06:44AM -0500, Jason Baugher
wrote:
> Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested
> a "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can only think of
> one reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. The
Let them submit the IP justification form, I would like to read how spammers
justify their IP usage and I would really like to see how RIR would take it.
*Interetesting*
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 7:44 AM, Steve Richardson w
That behavior is usually a warning sign of "snowshoe" bulk mailing,
especially when coupled with randomly named domains / hostnames
As for working directly with spamhaus .. did they specify how they do
that? You might find http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=641
worth reading
On Mon, Jun
On 6/20/2011 7:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice about
the need for a block that large.
We do charge them for addresse
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
>
>> Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice
>> about the need for a block that large.
We do charge them for addresses already and cost doesn't come into
pl
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
> Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice about
> the need for a block that large.
I would also give them a /64 per lan (alt: broadcast domain) as well to allow
them to start working with IPv6 for their email.
- Ja
On 06/20/2011 08:13 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
What I'd like to know is whether there is a
legitimate use for so many addresses in discontiguous networks besides
spam? I am trying my best to give them the benefit of the doubt here,
because they do work directly with Spamhaus to not be listed (I
Hello NANOG,
I work for a medium-sized ISP with our own ARIN assignments (several /18 and
/19 netblocks) and I've got a question about a possibly dubious customer
request. I know a lot of you have experience on a much grander scale than
myself, so I'm looking for some good advice.
We have a custo
38 matches
Mail list logo
