North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: New and interesting network abuse.
- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Date: Tue Jan 11 02:43:42 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=L1hA3TaYyFfsw0Q57uaLLSNz/b+FDqLObh6m4EEZ6JsjhsES9hyDrlYgqzaBDM3tBDKJsgFLsHgUgsKLLi2c/fUHS4Nocnh0dg26d4gzUrpEqhTZY2lz49u8lTDyOSv7ucWHRrgPPqB6PoYNoG13ryCZQBbNbra4Kbv5PhfR+bU=
Thread that I just started yesterday about port 25 blocking and if
more ISPs werent doing this bidirectionally.
Which is what your local ISP, and other ISPs that have dialup pools, must do.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:33:00 -0600, Ejay Hire <email@example.com> wrote:
> My apologies if this strays off topic, but I wanted to share my recent
> We had a collocation customer come in and request a t1 of pots lines for
> their servers, then complaints that their "security" software wasn't
> working because of our RPF checks. As it turns out they were dialing up
> to a local isp, and sending bulk email using our bandwidth, but the
> dial-up's ip.... And receiving the TCP ack on the dial up.