"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot of spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really wish NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :) SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:

Bill, You get the 10 point bonus.

Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ?

Scott

bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001 02:49:32 PM

Please respond to bmanning@karoshi.com

Sent by: owner-nanog@merit.edu

To: nanog@merit.edu cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu

Subject: Re: rfc 1918?

SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:

...

Agreed Valdis,

Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are constantly bouncing off our filters we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO.

Scott

AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of your networks?

RFC 1597.

--bill