pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Mr Pilkington
Re: Public pressure works against prominent compan
a) compiling and maintaining the required whitelist is not some trivial task. I'd think it's cumbersome/tedious/problematic enough that that alone would deter anyone from going for it.
b) what about the case where an ISP's caching DNS server is used by more than one class of user (ie residential, business users, their own mail servers, etc). How will you decide which request you will honor and which you won't? Perhaps you're thinking to force each mail server into running their own local DNS?
c) this doesn't seem much different than existing firewalling/blocklisting except that your protection is indirect... it wouldn't take much for an attacker to learn the IP address of the intended victim and then feed it manually to the zombies and then... what? The path is clear?
So... no... your approach would be far more ineffective, restrictive and inconvenient than an outbound/off-net block of port 25 traffic which does a better job of destroying a zombie's SMTP abilities. Of course, we don't need to rehash the pros/cons of port 25 blocking here... that's another topic altogether.
Perhaps, the following should be required reading 
»www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html |
