North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
- From: Todd Vierling
- Date: Tue May 18 18:54:47 2004
On Tue, 18 May 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
: > Don't know about hotmail, but AOL is working on this. You might want to
: > check out that SPAM-L list, if this is something you are interested in.
: Other than knowing that it's a good idea
s/a good idea/an emerging requirement/
(and for one definition of the idea, s/a good idea/a soon-to-be RFC "MUST"/)
: if you can do it,
s/can do it/wish to send mail, or at least DSNs, to most of the 'net soon/
: but sometimes not doable with the resources at hand,
Those of us under a deluge of virus bounce spew just don't care anymore.
If you don't reject at SMTP time, you're now a major part of the problem.
(As a straw example, I happen to block, on a personal 12 user domain, almost
20k bounce spew attempts per day. That's simply untenable anymore.)
: > Once AOL starts doing it -- you can bet they will be one of the ones
: > blocking on it.
: That's going to pretty much torpedo the concept of secondary MX's.
And what's the gain of secondary MX's that don't have access to a valid
address list? Ever since the advent of globally deployed, permanently
connected sending MX's, offsite secondary MX machines have become moot.
SMTP mandates that a missed connection is equivalent to a 4xx error, in that
the sender is to retry delivery later. That obviates any need for an
offsite secondary MX in today's world.
Unauditable SMTP transport -- that is, SMTP where neither the sender nor
recipient values are verifiable -- is no longer a workable solution. The
problems with that model are reaching critical mass, and if you don't think
it's a problem now, just trust me; you'll be a believer soon enough.
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>