Marc Perkel wrote:
> Well - I'm in the process of blocking open relay tests so that they
> can't detect that I'm open.
If your server was any more 'open' you could run a Dennis-bodied Leyland
Titan up its NIC.
Suggest you have a read here:
http://www.unitedlayer.com/aup.html
In case you do not recognize it, that's the Acceptable Use Policy of
your own upstream, who also host most of the Apache project.
I suspect United Layer would be neither amused nor slow to react
if/as/when a leasing customer decides to deliberately have and already
dodgy mail-and-everything-else-under-the-sun 'server' further emulate
the hoor of Babylon and play open relay with all comers.
That's 'real', and you can check it for yourself.
Bill
>
> jonathan vanasco wrote:
>
>>
>> If you go that route, make sure you won't be getting any mail from AOL
>> or MS customers -- both have policies to disable all mail from open
>> relays, and they do periodic checks.
>>
>> I found out when an apache proxypass linking our webserver to our
>> office firewall had a typo in it that made it semi-open. Broke all
>> mail for AOL for 3 days until i got all the bureaucratic stuff taken
>> care of.
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2005, at 12:46 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> So - the reason open relays are bad is because spammers can use then
>>> to send spam. But - if I have a really good spam filter that would
>>> block spam sent through open relays - then having an open relay
>>> wouldn't be a problem.
>>>
>>> My spam filter is good enough that I'm thinking about going open relay.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
