From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
Please stop this random speculating. The ISP that was blocked is not
my current ISP (I moved last fall), so none of this is relevant.
So what ISP was blocked? Why do I suspect you are being disingenuous
and that it was a $30/month account?
And
if I'm dealing with Hurricane now, well, that's the first I'd heard of
it, since I'm downstream on a hosted service and never bothered to
check who all my upstream providers are.
As always, the buyer must beware. Adopting the terminology in
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-01.txt or similar would help. Hurricane
Electric could say that its IP addresses may not be optimal for SMTP
clients but are useful for SMTP, HTTP, and other servers.
Are you seriously asserting
that I deserve to be blocked if I don't confirm that all my upstream
ISP's are complying with J. Random Blacklist?
That is a obviously an intentional distortion of my point. However,
now that you "ask," then yes, you do "deserve" to have your mail
blocked if you buy service from a provider with a reputation for
being friendly to spammers. Your failure to exercise due diligence
does not impose an obligation to accept more spam on others. You
"deserve to be blocked" more than the rest of us "deserve" to receive
the spam that helps support Hurricane Electric.
However, you are right that my current laptop configuration is one of
many that won't work when Caller-ID or SPF records come into use for
the domain guppylake.com. At that point, obviously, I will change my
laptop's configuration. My sincere hope is that by the time that
happens, I will have a better option for smtp submission. Blocking
port 25 will most assuredly *not* help that problem.
On the contrary, Caller-ID and SPF would not stop as much spam without
collateral damage as blocking port 25 from TimeWarner, Comcast, and
other $30/month service providers. Caller-ID and SPF cannot have
significant effects against spam for at least the 5-10 years before
most domains support them. Caller-ID, SPF, and the rest would in
effect block port 25 about the same IP addresses as simple port 25
blocking of $30/month accounts, in the unlikely event that Caller-ID
etc. ever have any effects. If you would switch to SUBMIT, you would
not care if your TimeWarner account is port 25 blocked, except that
you might expect TimeWarner's prices to drop for needing even less
abuse-desk staff. On the other hand, port 25 blocking can be done
today and has immediate good effects against spam, as well as worms
and viruses.
Of course, port 25 is not a panacea for spam, worms, or viruses.
Of course, some viruses and spammers would adopt the obvious
countermeasure of using the ISP's servers, but many would not.
Besides, the ISP is could filter or at least rate limit, and there
are no easy countermeasures for spammers against that.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf