On 24 Apr 2003, Joe Klemmer wrote: > You misunderstood me. I was saying that most all the admins I know > have been blocking all IP addresses in that range. Doesn't matter if > it's a Class A, B or C (or X, Y Z). Many, many mail admins just dump > all mail from 209.x.x.x, 210.x.x.x and 211.x.x.x as a matter of course. > Now do you see what I was saying? I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with that sort of filtering. I also understand that you are not necessarily one of those admins who block 209.x.x.x. So my message is not really directed at you Joe, but at any admin who thinks blocking entire network blocks is a good way to go. I just wanted to show a real world example of where this type of filtering falls down. This (small) block of addresses is being used in Canada. There are surely other blocks in the 209/210/211 networks that are being used elsewhere. I have my network set up to use my ISP's mail server as a smart host. And that server is not in the 209 network, so I should be safe from this type of filtering. But who knows, maybe some braindead admin will not only block 209.x.x.x, but they will look through the headers and block anything that mentions 209.x.x.x. In fact, Rodolfo already stated in a different message that his organization was blocking 209 at the firewall. On 23 Apr 2003 Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > My partner polled our clients (mostly Central American and East > Coast USA) and it turned out none had clients/suppliers/ties to the > Far East, so by popular demand 209/10/11 got blocked at the > firewall and peace descended upon us. His clients were not told that a bunch of dsl users in Canada were also going to be blocked. -- Arend -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
