If the service providers spent as much resources implementing systems that automatically erected a walled-garden for botted hosts as they have with bandwidth monitoring, our internet would look at lot cleaner. But apparently the money trail didn't lead them there. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:09 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
That seems to be the convention wisdom, but the science experiment as it were in blocking port 25 doesn't seem to be correlated (must less causated) with any drop in the spam rate. Because so far as I've heard there isn't any such drop. Spammers and the rest are pretty resourceful.
Let's put it this way .. a lot of ISPs have already realized that which is why port 25 blocking or management is the basics. They do that and have done that for years (and various providers elsewhere still proudly claim "hey, we do outbound port 25 blocking, we're great!!!"). The real action is in walled gardens to automatically detect and isolate botted hosts till they're cleaned up Go talk to arbor, sandvine, perftech etc etc srs