On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Seth Goodman wrote:
That's an unenviable task, but how would just blocking outgoing port 25
cause random breakage?
It doesn't, if it's known that it's blocked, and it's confined to port 25.
ISPs tend to treat their port-block lists as state secrets, however.
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.
I'm not sure you understand...my friends weren't running a service, I was.
But an ISP somewhere along the way was rejecting as unroutable connections
*to* specific port numbers. It took me a while to sort out the "I don't
have a route to your machine!" complaints from some people while others
could connect just fine.
So are you suggesting that a static IP should be necessary just to use
services being provided by *other* systems, even if you have no plans to
run a service yourself?