John Warren wrote:
NO, to both of you! Forget that port blocking through legislation
idea immediately. Where would it end? Port 26000 (Quake)? Port
443 (HTTPS)? Imagine every lobbyist group pressing the governments
to
mandate blocking their own favorite unfavorite port. Blocking ports
through legislation is a wonderful means of censorship. Only over
my
dead body.
And it's the last think I want to see but if the ISP don't solve the
problem with direct to MX spam then someone has to force them too.
Fines do a darn good job doing that. Remember that we are not asking
the ISP to do something that is not an Internet standard. Their is a
RFC for MSAs. What we are asking is that the ISP follow that RFC and
once done shutdown the use of port 25 by any system not registered
with the ISP as a MSA or MTA.
How exactly would you dynamically register your MTA with every ISP that
you would potentially send mail to? With a reverse MX record? Oh
wait... How about an SPF record! Hrm... Isn't that what SPF intends to
do (with much more policy granularity I might add), WITHOUT blocking any
ports?
---
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.
-------
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