On May 30, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Mr. Borenstein and others like him expect the rest of us to subsidize
their $30/month connectivity by dealing with the network abuse of his
fellow customers, because they find $30/month comfortable.
Just for the record, I spend plenty more than $30 per month on Internet
connectivity, as does my employer. My views on this have nothing to do
with the cost of my Internet service, which is why I said nothing about
such costs. Since your message seems to be based entirely on a
misguided assessment of my motives, there's not much else in it that
needs to be answered. (We could argue forever about what constitutes a
monopoly, but I doubt any minds would be changed.)
Port 25 blocking may be sometimes necessary simply to preserve the
integrity of a network under heavy spam attack. But I believe that a
long-term solution is possible that will be both more effective and
less restrictive. My own focus is on that long-term planning, and I
just can't see port 25 blocking as anything more than a rather
problematic stopgap measure in advance of a more spam-resistant
infrastructure for SMTP message submission. -- Nathaniel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf