Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Blocking entire netblocks can actually do more harm than good if it's not done correctly. If I have a small /28 network in one of my ISP's larger blocks, and some idiot with another network in the same block decides to start spamming, you have to make sure you block the idiot's network, and not the ISP's larger block. Otherwise, you could block me and plenty of other legitimate mail servers. As you said, you just might not care at this point, and I don't blame you.

    Of course for things like cable modem

    • by drhyde (1683) on 2004.04.13 9:47 (#30059) Homepage Journal
      I'd only do that for netblocks which are repetitive egregious spammers. In those cases, I consider the collateral damage to be a feature, not a bug. In any case, what I'd like to do is not refuse to accept mail, but refuse to even start talking SMTP with hosts in such blocks. Spamware and winfestations generally don't seem to be clever enough to handle that and so go on to their next victim. Real mail software on the other hand - even MS mail software - should interpret that as my server being down, and so fall back to using my secondary MX. Which will, of course, gladly forward their mail on to me.

      For mail that does come via my secondary MX, it still has to get past spamassassin.