Le vendredi 23 Juillet 2004 21:25, John Keown a écrit :
Well if the rumors are correct and spf and sender id become a fact then to
send email from a mta on DSL or Cable modem is going to be very expensive.
I have heard talk that the large access providers are going to require a
very substantial deposit for running a mail server on their network. They
are also blocking port 25 to further prevent mailservers other than their
own to relay email to the net.
I don't know where you got these "rumors" from, and which IAP and country its
may concern.
I personnally live in France, and my IAP's AUP is that it specifically permits
its customers to run any server they want, the IAP provides full/IP access
without any port filtering, provides a fixed IP and provides a customizable
Reverse-DNS entry for that IP.
And this is in the _contract_, not in rumors. (And if it were not in the
contract, I wouldn't have subscribed to their services in the first place).
They also have an abuse service which supposedly takes care about abuse
problems.
Now what you say doesn't sound logical to me. Because "when SPF and Sender-ID
become a fact", it will be actually much easier to protect receiving MTA's
from end-user-borne spam and viruses coming from virused/trojaned Windows
machines.
Because if they send direct-to-MX crap forging the sender name, as they
currently do, SPF will help keep them out of any MTA that wishes so.
So SPF will make this much less of a problem, and it seems really illogical
that IAPs would in the same time forbid their customers from running servers
where:
a/ The "true" servers are not the problem
b/ The problem will be mostly solved.
Now consider that 99,9999% of the "trojan spam" and viruses come from Windows
machines, thanks to the lack of security provided by this so-called operating
system, and now you know where the problem really is.
The problem, actually, is not with the users.
--
Michel Bouissou <michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E