Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS41609, AS203974, and Alexandru ("Andrei") Stanciu / Suceava, Romania
ox <andre@ox.co.za> you wrote:
For Abuse purposes... Email Administrators should as a rule not relay/accept emails from IP numbers with no reverse...
I do agree completely. However as is made clear by this exact case, there are enough inbound mail servers still left on this planet that do not follow that rule so as to make it worthwhile for spammers to continue to go to great lengths... even hijacking old & abandoned legacy IPv4 blocks... to get "fresh" IP addresses, even if they can't set up any reverse DNS for those. In a way, this case shows just how desperate spammers have become in their search for "fresh" IP addres space. Regards, rfg
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:46:06 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
For Abuse purposes... Email Administrators should as a rule not relay/accept emails from IP numbers with no reverse... I do agree completely. However as is made clear by this exact case,
ox <andre@ox.co.za> you wrote: there are enough inbound mail servers still left on this planet that
yes, sadly some of the providers on this list, it is conservatively less than 25% though (aggressive/optimistically 10%), so there is a small/smaller minority still to convert... /* Taking a small break for marketing / advertisement... ************************************************************** If you are reading this thread and you accept emails for relay with no rDNS check, please consider changing your policy :) */
do not follow that rule so as to make it worthwhile for spammers to continue to go to great lengths... even hijacking old & abandoned legacy IPv4 blocks... to get "fresh" IP addresses, even if they can't set up any reverse DNS for those.
In a way, this case shows just how desperate spammers have become in their search for "fresh" IP addres space.
Agree 100% :) Andre
participants (2)
-
ox
-
Ronald F. Guilmette