Re: net.terrorism

[Adrian Chadd]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001, John Payne wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:49:50PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I'd rather get partial announcements than traffic-filtered announcements.
> > That way, my other network pipes (which hopefully have a path without
> > above.net in it to vuurwerk) will take over. above.net are happy.
> > vuurwerk is happy. life is good. no bitching or extra configuration.
> 
> personally speaking, and no disrespect to any abovenet network engineers, or anyone
> else, but I would *MUCH* rather a solution which doesn't involve them logging
> onto several routers to block 1 route (I don't know how many places abovenet peer
> with uunet, but I'll bet that its more than 1 place)
> 
> a) Add a blackhole route  (1 config change)
> b) Tag/block route on ingress (X config changes)
> c) block route on egress (Y config changes)

That in itself is bogus. How many MXes do you run? Can you seriously
tell me that every time you add a domain to your MX servers you consider
the updates "too difficult" ?

I mean, going by what you said above, we might as well run open relays.
That way, whenever we add new domains, thats 1 config change to your
primary MX host to accept mail, and bewm! it works!

Thats what scripts and other automata are for.




Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chadd			"Sex Change: a simple job of outside 
<adrian@creative.net.au>	  to inside plumbing."
				    - Some random movie