North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: rfc 1918?
"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot of spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really wish NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :) [email protected] wrote: > > Bill, You get the 10 point bonus. > > Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ? > > Scott > > bill manning <[email protected]>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001 > 02:49:32 PM > > Please respond to [email protected] > > Sent by: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: rfc 1918? > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Agreed Valdis, > > > > Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are > > constantly bouncing off our filters > > we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and > > pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal > > solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the > > predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO. > > > > Scott > > > > AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to > prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of > your networks? > > RFC 1597. > > --bill
|