Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

As Jonathan M. Bresler wrote ... > > stopping chat on the tech lists is an open research project ;) Very much so. It will most likely require GenuineIntelligence (as opposed to AI or the organic, carbon based variant we all know too well ;-) GenuineIntelligence is not scheduled for release for

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 1:31 AM +0100 1999/9/27, Brian Somers wrote: > An interesting extension: If an AOL MX receives a message with an > AOL from address from a non-AOL relay it's accepted for delivery and > dropped in the bit-bucket. Well, it's obviously spam (isn't it?) ! This item kept coming up about

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

[.] > Frankly, I have to agree that no dynamic dialup user should be allowed > to connect through to port 25 on anything but the ISPs own mail server. Today, port 25... tomorrow the *WORLD* ha ha ha ha ha ! An interesting extension: If an AOL MX receives a message with an AOL f

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

stopping chat on the tech lists is an open research project ;) jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

According to Brian Somers: > I belive sendmail-8.10 will have smtp authentication built in. > There's an rfc too (2554) but I can't say that they're the same thing 8.10 (not yet released) has SMTP AUTH. Support SMTP AUTH (see RFC 2554). New macros for this purpose are

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Alex Zepeda wrote in message ID : > No, the real problem is the ISPs who can't fund decent servers and provide > decent service. If they could take care of spam and provide a 99% > reliable service, I'd have very few problems with using their mail

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

:Brian Somers wrote in message ID :<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: :> I think it's up to the ISP what default policies they have, and I :> also think that this sort of policy is a good default... but only as :> long as the ISP allows exceptions. As a paying subscriber with a :> clean record I *must* be

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Gary Palmer wrote: > No, actually, there is absolutely nothing which says that you, as a > subscriber of good standing, *have* to be allowed to connect to > non-local port 25. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the ISP > require that you buy a static IP (with N months i

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Brian Somers wrote in message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think it's up to the ISP what default policies they have, and I > also think that this sort of policy is a good default... but only as > long as the ISP allows exceptions. As a paying subscriber with a > clean record I *must* be allowed

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Brian Somers wrote in message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I have some experience (from anti-spam mailing lists) of ISP's who > > are quite prepared to open port 25 for customers who ask. This is > > very good; SMTP has no authentication at all, and it is this > > "free-for-all" feature that spamme

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > > If _we_ don't start to do something about it, big brother _is_ going > > > to do something about it. Trust me on this one, being a member of the > > > USPA I know that we are far better off implementing our own (as ISP's) > > > set of safe gaurds that help eliminate certain undesirable beha

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > If _we_ don't start to do something about it, big brother _is_ going > > to do something about it. Trust me on this one, being a member of the > > USPA I know that we are far better off implementing our own (as ISP's) > > set of safe gaurds that help eliminate certain undesirable behavior. >

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> I have some experience (from anti-spam mailing lists) of ISP's who > are quite prepared to open port 25 for customers who ask. This is > very good; SMTP has no authentication at all, and it is this > "free-for-all" feature that spammers abuse. However - with a view [.] I belive sendmail-8.1

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > Basically, I think not allowing ISP's to allow the Dialup lines to > > forward email as a good thing, but for them to limit was businesses do > > with their IP traffic is simply too big brother'ish, no matter what > > their contract states. > > If _we_ don't start to do something about it, bi

Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)

Jacques Vidrine wrote in message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This prevents your customers from being something that could get you > > on the RBL or the DUL MAP for bad behavior, it also inforces the use > > of your smart host relay, as it/they is/are the only way to get a > > tcp port 25 setup com

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Actually, I should clarify, my dialup is actually dedicated. not dialup-when-I-need-it. don;t know if this makes a diofference but I pay ALOT of money for the use of my own guaranteed modem 24/7. -Pat ___ Pat Lynch

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> yes, Dynamic dialups are the real problems. I have a static dialup, and > its essentially mine to do with what I want. its not counted among my > ISP's dialup pools. And if you signed the additional clauses to our AUP that basically places you at legal and financial risk for violation of the ot

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

yes, Dynamic dialups are the real problems. I have a static dialup, and its essentially mine to do with what I want. its not counted among my ISP's dialup pools. ___ Pat Lynch [E

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

[ CC list trimmed ] Pat Lynch wrote: > DUL, while I'm not sure whether we should take this to -chat or not since > we are now getting into noise on the -current list, is also a good thing. > simply because noone on a dialup has reason to be sending mail directly to > me, they should be sending i

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> DUL, while I'm not sure whether we should take this to -chat or not since > we are now getting into noise on the -current list, is also a good thing. > simply because noone on a dialup has reason to be sending mail directly to > me, they should be sending it through thier ISP's mail servers. T

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 10:59 PM 9/24/99 +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: >As Gary Schrock wrote ... > > all mail would still have to go through the local isp's. Personally, I > > would immediately unsubscribe to any isp that decided this was acceptable > > behavior on their part. I use the mail server at work for all my o

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pat Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you use sendmail, this is pretty trivial, its a slight modification to > the original RBL check : There's a nice patch for the sendmail 8.9.3 that allows you to specify multiple blacklists easily (e.g., both RBL and DUL).

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

If you use sendmail, this is pretty trivial, its a slight modification to the original RBL check : # DNS based IP address spam lists R$* $: $&{client_addr} R$-.$-.$-.$-$: $(host $4.$3.$2.$1.rbl.maps.vix.com. $: $1.$2.$3.$4 $) R$-.$-.$-.$-$: $(host $4.$3

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

I totally agree with this, while it doesn;t stop all spam (and some has to be added manually to my own lists) I've dramatically cut down on spam to my machines. DUL, while I'm not sure whether we should take this to -chat or not since we are now getting into noise on the -current list, is also a

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

As Gary Schrock wrote ... > At 03:00 AM 9/24/1999 -0700, you wrote: > >Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with > >this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we > >just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tcp 25 setup packets. > > Hmm, maybe I'm in

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 11:50 AM 9/24/99 -0700, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > insert plug for the FreeBSDcon talk "Stopping Spam--Five Years >in the Trenches" by Jonathan M Bresler ;P But what about "Stopping chat on technical mailing lists..." by ?. :-) Kurt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTE

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

According to John Polstra: > Strange. I use the RBL on my mail server here, but it really doesn't > accomplish much. In the past 8 days it has blocked only 3 distinct Same here. The DUL is much more effective than the RBL. I'll probably use the RSS too (with monitoring ofc ourse). -- Ollivier

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

: I would immediately unsubscribe to any isp that decided this was acceptable : behavior on their part. I use the mail server at work for all my outgoing : mail. Why? Because the machine is lightly loaded and I don't have to : worry about my mail getting lost in the depths of my isp's mail s

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > > I agree. > > > > > > > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to > > > > directly attatch to it's port 25. > > > > > > No it doesn't, but you do bring up another good point why not to use the > > > ISP's mail server. Security. I don't want email to bounce on

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > One of us, at least, evidently. > > How much mail does the use of the MAPS DUL reject? varies sharply from day to day. since 8/31 dul has rejected 93 connection attempts. map has rejected 361 connection attempts. > > How much of that do you think is worth rejecting? >

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > would immediately unsubscribe to any isp that decided this was acceptable > > behavior on their part. I agree. > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to > directly attatch to it's port 25. No it doesn't, but you do bring up another good point why not to use t

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > I agree. > > > > > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to > > > directly attatch to it's port 25. > > > > No it doesn't, but you do bring up another good point why not to use the > > ISP's mail server. Security. I don't want email to bounce on your box > > a

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> At 03:00 AM 9/24/1999 -0700, you wrote: > >Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with > >this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we > >just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tcp 25 setup packets. > > Hmm, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong (I h

Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)

> [This thread is off topic, but ... ] > On 24 September 1999 at 3:00, "Rodney W. Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with > > this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we > > just log them) is to block all outbound

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > Strange. I use the RBL on my mail server here, but it really doesn't > accomplish much. In the past 8 days it has blocked only 3 distinct > spam e-mails, and that's typical. Yet I still receive an average of > 5-10 spam mails in my mailbox every day. (*Must* *stop* *fist* *of* > *death*!)

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 03:00 AM 9/24/1999 -0700, you wrote: >Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with >this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we >just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tcp 25 setup packets. Hmm, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong (I hope so), but

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > > would immediately unsubscribe to any isp that decided this was acceptable > > > behavior on their part. > > I agree. > > > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to > > directly attatch to it's port 25. > > No it doesn't, but you do bring up another good poin

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> >From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 03:00:55 -0700 (PDT) > > >Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with > >this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we > >just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tcp 25 setup p

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> These days the RBL is more of a preventative measure than a blocking > measure. It has already forced most open relays to tighten up. I'll go with that. The DUL stops _huge_ amounts of "drive-by" spam, though... M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscr

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The RBL is great! There is a teensy bit of colateral damage, but not > so much that I worry about it. Here in ZA, our USP traffic provider > (Teleglobe) uses RBL, thus absolving us of the responsibility. Since > we starte

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> About the only positive thing I have to say about the DUL is that Vix > stated that entries are placed on it at the request of the custodians of > the netblock in question. This is a very positive thing about the DUL; ISP co-operation. This implies that said ISP's are also prepared to provide a

Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)

[This thread is off topic, but ... ] On 24 September 1999 at 3:00, "Rodney W. Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with > this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we > just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tc

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 10:35 AM 9/24/1999 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >Our outbound smarthost smtp server is carefully monitor, has never lost >a single mail message, and screaming fast at getting email out. After >all we also run commercial opt-in bulk emailing for large clients and >we do know how to get 100's

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

< said: > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to > directly attatch to it's port 25. Can you say firewall circumvention... What firewall? If Gary's employer is at all like the shop I help run, there are none. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We ar

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

>From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 03:00:55 -0700 (PDT) >Another thing that ISP coulds start doing (we are in process with >this now, but on a monitoring only basis, instead of a deny we >just log them) is to block all outbound from AS tcp 25 setup packets. Not

RBL, DUL + other acronymns [was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups]

For those who don't know the acronymns RBL, DUL, etc... (like me a few minutes ago :-), they are: RBL Realtime Blackhole List TSI Transport Security Initiative DUL Dial-up User List RSS Relay Spam Stopper. More information can be found at the site: http://maps.vix.com/. Regards

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> Do you know about the RBL? How do you feel about it? We are using > it via DNS and BGP on a test basis right now.I have had legitimate > important mail blocked at Freebsd.org due to the source being on the > RBL, but that is a price I am willing to pay. The RBL is great! There is a teensy

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> > How much mail does the use of the MAPS DUL reject? I think they meant to ask ``how much SPAM mail does ...'' > > Virtually none. The idea is that dial-up users use their own ISP's > smarthosts, in which case the ISP can nail them if they are spammers, > and I don't get their spam if they g

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

> How much mail does the use of the MAPS DUL reject? Virtually none. The idea is that dial-up users use their own ISP's smarthosts, in which case the ISP can nail them if they are spammers, and I don't get their spam if they go for the "direct-to-MX" or "direct injection" spamming method. Some

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

At 4:28 PM +1200 1999/9/24, Joe Abley wrote: > How much mail does the use of the MAPS DUL reject? I don't know about the stats from hub.freebsd.org, but from my experience it rejects a relatively small amount. > How much of that do you think is worth rejecting? Again, from

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [hub.freebsd.org now blocking IP adresses on the DUL] > > If you use your ISP's mailer as a "smarthost", you will avoid this > problem. > > Thos of us in the anti-spam community think thsat this is a Good > Thing. One of us, at least, evidently. How

Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Don, excellent idea. i have expanded upon it and added it to freebsd.mc. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups

Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [hub.freebsd.org now blocking IP adresses on the DUL] > If you use your ISP's mailer as a "smarthost", you will avoid this > problem. > > Thos of us in the anti-spam community think thsat this is a Good > Thing. That's one way to cut down on support mail