johnp writes:
Mark wrote:
I wouldn't say "unrestricted access" per se; more like "provisional
access" -- where the provision is that they not abuse the services.
I disagree - the *only* provision is that they have a login username and
password. There
is no evidence of any extensive "policing" of a user hammering SMTP. Example
- cox.net
allow their basic users 10Mbs of SMTP mail per day, but if you have a
business account -
there is NO LIMIT!!
The point you keep missing is that SMTP AUTH does nothing to fix
this. If users can send mail using SMTP AUTH, they can send spam
using SMTP AUTH, and an ISP that does not police its users sending
mail without AUTH is even less likely to police those using AUTH.
Policing is what matters.
Actually, I take that back. What matters is that spam not be sent.
How an ISP accomplishes that does not matter except to the ISP and its
users. Can we agree on that much?
--
Dick St.Peters, stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com