spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: first spf-enabled spam

2004-04-19 11:11:56
From: David Brodbeck
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:07 AM


Technically, you're quite correct. Politically and socially,
it's a serious
problem. This is a *BIG* issue among my "Internet
libertarian" friends. They
absolutely do not want their ISP's interfering in any way
with their home connectivity

I'm not really an "internet libertarian", but I'm against arbitrary port
blocking because it breaks things randomly.  I've already had the
experience of trying to set up a custom service on a high-numbered port
and having to play "minesweeper" with my users, trying to find a port
number that no one's ISP was blocking outbound connections to.

That's an unenviable task, but how would just blocking outgoing port 25
cause random breakage?

Though I think politics is off-limits here, there is an answer to the
objection of your friends, though they may not like it:  pay for a static
IP.  They can run their own DNS server, web server, etc. exactly how they
like it:  their IP, their rules.  That should have great appeal to them.

The dynamic IP model that allows ISP's to cheaply provide cookie-cutter
service to a large pool of customers depends on the support costs remaining
low.  Many people who use that service are not capable of preventing their
boxes from becoming infected, hijacked and abusive of the network, so it is
reasonable for the ISP to put some restrictions on what they can do in
exchange for the low cost service the user gets.  I'm afraid your friends
want a premium service at a bargain price, and while I wish them the best of
luck, I'm not terribly sympathetic.  If you want full, unfettered internet
access, that costs the ISP more so they need to charge more.  If your
friends think the ISP's are overcharging for that grade of service, I am
definitely sympathetic with them as static IP service tends to be priced for
businesses, not individuals, but that also sounds like a business
opportunity.

--

Seth Goodman