Re: NDNs considered harmful
2010-08-12 13:54:16
Paul Smith wrote:
Well, if we were the ISP we could - but we're not... The ISP could be
anyone - we do the end-user mail server software.
(I'm not asking for a solution really - just saying that the 'NDN' issue
isn't that easy - if an upstream ISP blocks outgoing port 25 (blocking
sending using MX routing), and then blocks all outgoing mail because of
'spam' (NDNs) then you have no choice but to not send NDNs).
I'm not sure I follow. ISP have more "power" when it comes to "Users",
and if is blocking port 25, then this generally implies a home,
non-business tier account. If its was a business tier, an ISP blocking
your mail service is open to Tortious Interference (business
interruption) claims.
(NB - We try to encourage users to switch to incoming SMTP if possible
because then an SMTP reject happens, but if they have dynamic IP
addresses it won't work, or if they are are technically incompetent
(many are) then even just opening up a port in a firewall to allow SMTP
in is not possible.)
We still have many of the low-end, ex-BBSers sysops who have home
setups or home business setups with home ISP accounts.
Many use the DynaDNS or whatever you call it stuff and I generally try
today to avoid their support issues because its nothing but headaches
trying to get them to be satisfied with trying to setup a real mail
server operation. Delays, throttling, tarpitting, proxies, etc, is
always an issue with them. Seems to work fine one moment and puff,
its back to problems. Not very reliable.
What we are doing now is basically giving them PORT 587 and ESMTP AUTH
outbound MTA sender features and I am doing so reluctantly. Before we
relied on prearranged allow IP relay, smart hosting PORT 25 outbound
only. The growth of these SOHO is high though. Many are
moving/starting businesses are home and ISP business fees are higher.
I suspect this is going to help this smaller market, but highly loyal
customer base, however, its going to be interesting to see how the
their ISPs are going to react to this or if its going to improve the
networking. I suspect it will - probably as a short term.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: NDNs considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, John R Levine
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Derek J. Balling
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Paul Smith
- Re: NDNs considered harmful,
Hector Santos <=
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: NDNs considered harmful, Hector Santos
Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, John Levine
Re: Changing RFC 5322 guidance about crlf.crlf response delay, John C Klensin
|
|
|