On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:45:41 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
<snip>
As Mr. Borenstein knows, a substantial fraction and probably
most spam is current sent using $30/month consumer accounts.
The spam that is not sent using such accounts is very easily
blocked. As he knows, if providers of those services would
either filter port 25 or terminate customers running trojan
zombies, that spam would stop. Providers of those $30/month
accounts have made clear that they cannot afford to hire the
people to monitor and deal with their abusive customers. That
is why many of the providers of those $30/month accounts submit
their own IP address blocks to various "dynamic" backlists or
block port 25 themselves.
Do you have more information or references regarding your
statements above? I'm interested in any studies etc.
I would find TCP port 25 being blocked by my ISP to be
unacceptable. It isn't the Internet anymore. The Internet's job
is to shunt around IP packets, irrespective of what is in them.
My anti-spam measures are so effective that I can't remember the
last spam I received. I would find not be able to run my own MTA,
unfortunately on a dynamically assigned IP ADSL service, as that
is all I can afford, to be far more costly than the very
negligable reduction in spam I would receive if TCP port 25 was
blocked by ISPs.
Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf