[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the case
>> of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly not have a problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and caused an adaptive filter to block it (eh? thousands of emails suddenly to a variety of servers? block). Interestingly, adaptive filters are often used for probing scans (and we didn't apply them to tcp/25, why?)
> Jack

Sad, but true. I will not patronize an ISP that decides for me which packets I want
and do not want, but, apparently there are people who will.

Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be better
than the current state, but, I vastly prefer "I pay, you route. If I want filtration, I'll
tell you."