Re: ES [Was : Anti-spam ...]

[PASZTOR Miklos <]

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Piet Beertema wrote:
> 
>     But the IBERNET administrator can cut the smtp port for the
>     companies that refuse to accept the anti-spam policies.
>     Here, in Romania, I'm working like this.  If I'm receiving
>     complains about one of the ISPs connected to our network and
>     if the local admins refuse to apply the anti-spam policies,
>     then I'm cutting their smtp port until they decide to do that.
>     I know that this sounds a little nazi, but it worked so far.
> Then you're effectively creating black holes, and you're
> causing problems all over the Internet: "host unreachable"
> can be due to *any* network problem at *any* place along
> the route and really is no substitute for a clear error
> message saying that mail to or from host X or domain Y is
> blocked due to spamming. Users getting their mail bounced
> after Z days will have no idea what the hell is going on,
> nor will most of the sysadmins.
[...]

 Piet,
 
 Cutting the smtp port does not result in general 'host unreachable'
 symptomps.  However using RBL with the BGP4 option *does*.
 You have more reason to reject RBL BGP4 usage than the practice
 that Corneliu describes.
 
 Mikl�s
---------  P�sztor Mikl�s ------------------ pasztor@localhost
      MTA SZTAKI/ASZI Budapest
      1132 V. Hugo u. 18-22               Tel: (36)-(1)-349-75-32