North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
- From: Roeland M.J. Meyer
- Date: Sun Jul 09 13:41:21 2000
Can you explain to my how we made the transition from third-party
relays to open-relays? Or is it that ORBS considers the
"third-party relay == open-relay" to hold true? I don't agree
with the latter and this is the source of my dislike for ORBS.
ORBS doesn't properly consider that case, nor does it test for
that case. That is the prime fallacy behind ORBS operations.
Every case that I've made is for controlled third-party relaying
in both SMTP and POP.
> From: Derek J. Balling [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 10:15 AM
> >Also, as I
> >said, there are valid reasons to allow third-party relays. In
> >fact, they are even required, depending on circumstances.
> Sorry... don't buy it. Upgrade your MTA to sendmail 8.10 or
> have your customers use current versions of their MUA's if they
> to travel. SMTP-AUTH is your friend and it appears to be fairly
> supported now within the various consumer MUA's. (Admittedly,
> time last year that wasn't necessarily the case)
> I fail to see an occurrence where an open relay is "necessary".
> you describe one for me?
I've already done this, bring counter examples or clearly refute
the examples given. BTW, sendmail 8.10 is still in beta. Also,
even when one uses POP/SSL one still hits the anti-relay blocks
if you are calling in from a foriegn network (XTND XMIT case). In
addition, direct SMTP, from many popular dialup blocks, hits many
anti-spam filters, regardless of content (ie ix.netcom.com,