2 Sep
2004
2 Sep
'04
5:39 a.m.
>> I think the ISPs are right to block outbound
port 25, and I
>> hope they do more of it. A high percentage of the spam
>> that's being blocked by my filters is coming from "dynamic"
>> connections (cable, dial-up, DSL) that make it harder to
>> trace and block on my side, and harder for the ISP to clamp
>> without affecting the next poor customer who gets that IP
>> address. The fact that people have trouble configuring it
>> is a matter of education of the consumer and corrections of
>> shortcomings in the MUAs (not making use of vital
>> information in available protocols). But in my mind,
>> blocking it is no worse an offense by the ISP than seat
>> belt laws, traffic lights, or control towers at airports.
>> And the ISP (or the corporation you work for,
>> etc.) has a right to control its traffic, especially when
>> they are being made increasingly responsible for that
>> traffic by their peers.
I have to COMPLETELY disagree. An ISP that blocks OUTBOUND access to ANY
legal/conforming site or service is being overly restrictive.
If I want to send spam mail I can and will [I DO NOT] by simply running a
WebService on my external site and talking to that from within the ISP
domain. Blocking outbound access provides NO benefit to ANYONE [except lazy
ignorant fools!]
It DOES prevent me from using ShadowMail [which runs on in conjunction with
my SMTP and POP3 accounts on my server(s) in Denver and allows review of all
inbound and outbound mail messages for a limited time from ANY (secure)
site]. It DOES prevent me from using MailAuthorizeIT [which utilizes the
originating IP and MAC of a message for authentication!]
It also makes it more difficult for me to service over 500 clients who have
Exchange Server Hosted on my Denver based servers. [Please NO blasting of MS
products in response to this thread <g>]