Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Stealth Blocking
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:33:13 -0700

Last week, I got one spam ("get a free motorola pager") which came
through 168 different open relays, bound for 4428 different recipients

I just peeked in my trash folder, and 6 out of the last 10 spams that I
received were sent directly from dial-up spam blowers.

Certainly we can agree that there are many paths spammers will take. If
rate-limiting eliminates/curbs the throwaway dial-up abusers, then surely
it is an effective tool in the fight. I'm not calling a cure-all.

That's why I think that port 25 blocking is the only way.  That, and
closing open relays, of course.

I would say that default blocking of port 25 is a good position to take,
but you can't deny that has its own problems. For one thing, the
exceptions become the rule. I've noticed a trend in spam from small
businesses, cable users, etc., many of whom are behind non-throwaway
lines. Going to a model where "legitimate" users are unfiltered doesn't
stop all spam, it only delays it at best.

In this regard, rate-limiting and port-blocks are just tools in the belt,
neither of them is perfect.

Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]