North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: rfc 1918?
- From: bill manning
- Date: Sun Feb 25 06:54:20 2001
"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot
spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really
NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :)
> Bill, You get the 10 point bonus.
> Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ?
> bill manning <email@example.com>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001
> 02:49:32 PM
> Please respond to firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent by: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
> Subject: Re: rfc 1918?
> SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:
> > Agreed Valdis,
> > Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are
> > constantly bouncing off our filters
> > we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and
> > pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal
> > solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the
> > predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO.
> > Scott
> AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to
> prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of
> your networks?
> RFC 1597.