In message <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org>,
"Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org> wrote:
>> I just saw more this morning, but for the first time not from
>> telmex.net.mx. And I think some of this morning's were probes to see
>> what IPs we have blocked (we got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups) in
>> preparation for more. I'm going to study them shortly.
>
>Yeah, they've been hopping between ISPs a lot. We've got three seperate
>class-B netblocks blocked already, and are hoping we don't eventually
>have to end up blocking out all of .mx.
If you are ISP or corporate mail administrator, blocking _direct_ SMTP
from dialups that don't belong to your own company is a Good Idea, IMHO.
You can take out essentially all of the world's problematic dialups in one
feel swoop via the comprehensive DSSL list. See http://www.imrss.org/dssl/
for more info.
(I think I've got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups in there already, but if
I have missed any, please _do_ let me know. Other Mexican providers that
are also covered by the DSSL include: data.net.mx, infosel.net.mx, and
uninet.net.mx.)
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
"Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
-- Steve Atkins
Follow-Ups:
|
|
