On 2 Feb 2004 at 17:14, Gustav Foseid wrote:
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.
And I say the hell with that idea. Port 25 MUST be blocked for any
other than mail servers.
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.)
The ONLY time port 25 should not be blocked is for mail servers PERIOD.
If you want to run a mail server then you tell your ISP that and they
would then open up port 25.
There is NO, I repeat, NO reason that and client ever need to send a
message on port 25. Port 587, the MSA port, has been setup for a long
time just for mail clients. The MSA server MUST authenticate all
requests to send mail.
No more direct to MX for anything other than a mail server.
No matter why reason anyone can come up with that would require a non-
mail server host to need to send on port 25 I say their wrong.
It's time that the US government force all ISP to block any of their
customers from using port 25 unless they request it for their own mail
server. To get that port 25 access they would have to agree that the
ISP could test their server any time they want.
This is the only way we are ever going to stop direct to MX spam, the
only way!
My ISP is doing this and I 100% support them!
If an ISP argues that such traffic should not be blocked, even from
private customers, I would say that I agree with them.
And I say NO. Only customers that run mail servers should ever be
allowed to have use of port 25, period!
--
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Warren
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Any and all use of my email address for bulk email without my |
| expressed permission is prohibited. This means NO JUNK EMAIL, SPAM.|
| Support the anti-Spam amendment, Join at http://www.cauce.org/ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
-------
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¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com