RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?

[Roeland M.J. Meyer]

Roland (first off, you're missing an 'e' <g>),

I agree. MHSC lost an entire market plan, hosting third-party
secure mail, becasue third-party mail services must allow
relaying that is at minimum semi-open. At the time SMTP AUTH
didn't exist (Until it's use becomes more wide-spread it still
isn't real useful). The anti-relay bunch are killing a valid
business model. Even for internal use, we have staff, on
client-site, that need to send/recieve their mail from our
servers, even when their lap-top is DHCP attached to another
net-block. Every week we find ourselves having to open the relays
more and more. Next week, I am travelling to the EU on business.
That's yet more net-blocks that I have to allow relaying from.

A single ORBS forged header, with the right source info in it,
will pass right through our mail system, like it was greased. The
whole anti-relay jihad is a fallacious rat-hole populated by
rabid self-righteous rats who don't have a clue. If they don't
need it then it must not be a valid feature <humph!>. ORBS itself
should be RBL'd, IMHO.

Using the same sort of mind-set to subjectively BL script-kiddee
networks is dangerous, as the ORBS bunch has shown. It is all too
easy for it to get out of hand, vigilante-style. What are the
criteria and who has the over-sight?

That said, having had a few of our production hosts "owned", by
mwsh in the past, I am NOT fond of script-kiddies and agree that
something needs to be done. But, I am seriously resistant to yet
another ORBS style regulator bunch. That is NOT the answer.
Please, let's all look for another solution.

---
R O E L A N D  M .  J .  M E Y E R
CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
Tel: (925)373-3954
Fax: (925)373-9781
http://staff.mhsc.com/rmeyer



> rdobbins@netmore.net: Saturday, July 08, 2000 11:03 AM
>
> ORBS forge headers (thereby violating the RFC) to look as if
> they're coming
> from domains you host, then if it goes through, they put you
> in their little
> black book for being an 'open relay'.  No notice, nothing.
>
> The problem with this is that for hosting-only providers like
> my firm, it's
> blatantly unfair.  We have thousands of users residing on
> networks (lots of

> encourage them to use IMAP, it's like herding cats to get any
> substantial
> percentage doing anything other than basic POP and SMTP.
>
> POP-before-SMTP isn't viable for the same reason that it's
extremely
> difficult to get people to use IMAP; to wit, users tend to
> resist change.
> In a corporate environment, you can force remote users to use
> additional
> authentication mechanisms, as long as you're willing to set
> them up and
> train the users.  Out here in the world, though, if you come
> down on people
> over something which forces them to change the way they do
> things in any
> substantial way, they vote with their feet and go to some
> other provider who
> not only doesn't secure his mail relay, but ignores spam
> complaints, as
> well.