Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> writes:
BTW I do _not_ think an ISP is allowed to be this unresponsible. They
do have an obligation to "the net", the same net that allows them to
make money.
They also have an obligation to transport the data you pay them to
transport. Sometimes that includes data to port 25 of a random machine
somewhere on the net.
I could easily fins cases where blocking port 25 is a bad idea. One
such case is users that send e-mail from a domain with "-all" in thei
SPF record, because they should always use their company's SMTP
server. Or you could image a company requiring use of their own SMTP
serevr because it inserts a disclaimer or does required logging.
(These servers would, of course, have to be authenticated SMTP
servers.)
If an ISP argues that such traffic should not be blocked, even from
private customers, I would say that I agree with them.
--
Gustav Foseid, Initio IT-løsninger AS
http://www.initio.no/
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦ç?2b¥yÈbox(_dot_)com