North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: SPAM Level Status - And why not stop the peering with lame ISPs

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Thu Feb 09 22:51:09 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DtezlANGKYyolE0KETu1LozBLr8vp/tb031IdqlpraER5Spo0bWMPb4EH2wQUJ+pAbpzmvTTCatfrQmQCIMeOps3c3onsTyKputzQMr2jMxe6KW5gAYkW5H69GXIZo+Ftk5HOGasI0CJ4GROlsNrjsjyhauCBMRJTrgi1/xtRAs=

On 2/10/06, Alain Hebert <[email protected]> wrote:
>     For APNIC, we also includes all their peers up-to (if possible) to a
> ARIN one.  But we only do that on extreme case of network flooding.
>     (No sense on wasting operator time on spam related incidents)

I agree you have a problem there - but try using something like's sbl and xbl first.  And then a few other well chosen
blocklists (not the "block all traffic from a country" variety at all)

You wont get any productive results from blocking apnic space the way you do.