SMTP Relays...

From: David V. Corbin <dvcorbin_at_optonline.net>
Date: Thu Sep 2 12:39:54 2004

>>> I think the ISPs are right to block outbound port 25, and I
>>> hope they do more of it. A high percentage of the spam
>>> that's being blocked by my filters is coming from "dynamic"
>>> connections (cable, dial-up, DSL) that make it harder to
>>> trace and block on my side, and harder for the ISP to clamp
>>> without affecting the next poor customer who gets that IP
>>> address. The fact that people have trouble configuring it
>>> is a matter of education of the consumer and corrections of
>>> shortcomings in the MUAs (not making use of vital
>>> information in available protocols). But in my mind,
>>> blocking it is no worse an offense by the ISP than seat
>>> belt laws, traffic lights, or control towers at airports.
>>> And the ISP (or the corporation you work for,
>>> etc.) has a right to control its traffic, especially when
>>> they are being made increasingly responsible for that
>>> traffic by their peers.

I have to COMPLETELY disagree. An ISP that blocks OUTBOUND access to ANY
legal/conforming site or service is being overly restrictive.

If I want to send spam mail I can and will [I DO NOT] by simply running a
WebService on my external site and talking to that from within the ISP
domain. Blocking outbound access provides NO benefit to ANYONE [except lazy
ignorant fools!]

It DOES prevent me from using ShadowMail [which runs on in conjunction with
my SMTP and POP3 accounts on my server(s) in Denver and allows review of all
inbound and outbound mail messages for a limited time from ANY (secure)
site]. It DOES prevent me from using MailAuthorizeIT [which utilizes the
originating IP and MAC of a message for authentication!]

It also makes it more difficult for me to service over 500 clients who have
Exchange Server Hosted on my Denver based servers. [Please NO blasting of MS
products in response to this thread <g>]
Received on Thu Sep 02 2004 - 12:39:54 BST