North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Port 25 filters - how many here deploy them bidirectionally?
- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Date: Sun Jan 09 20:54:09 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=c9rz5nBCC8eH4SmnqmIEZp4UXHMWYjWhmQkSKxXHFryASgIeXUWSRElOGPV4KdjyWOz/8pY2+7/qcO29DqbgX+BE04elHCbejprYJ6sKBL4ynf89quTDT/MbWCqcyHCWIV5dwgnxMXaqxAEQkP+3JD/1fDArQqFWDXxaGMkcYI4=
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:51:31 -0500 (EST), Sean Donelan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > So, a quick poll .. how many ISPs here have noticed this behavior, and
> > applied bidirectional filters? And if they've applied port 25 filters
> > bidirectionally, have they noticed any problems with this setup?
> Have you looked at the following :-)
I wrote some part of that doc (though the part about filtering you
quoted seems to have been written by a colleague) - you'll find docs
all over the 'net, that have a lot more detail.
Finding out how many ISPs are doing this is a rather different thing
from finding out how many docs out there are recommending it.
Especially as I'm seeing a marked uptick in this sort of behavior,
from ISPs that I thought normally do filter port 25.
As John points out earlier there were cases of specific people doing
this, though now I think we're seeing trojans do it - a rather more
Suresh Ramasubramanian (email@example.com)