North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 06:14:38PM -0600, John A. Tamplin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote: > > Is there a good reason why the throwway folks (those mentioned above) > > haven't blocked port 25 from their dialups to the outside internet? > > We are an ISP and we don't block our dialups from going to port 25 elsewhere > because this would eliminate their ability to rightfully use another mail > server. This frequently occurs when a user accesses a mail server at work > from their home dialup account. If other ISPs did this, we would have a > problem where a user dialing into their ISP couldn't reach their virtual > mail server, hosted on our network. We currently don't have many going > the other way, but that may change. This is roughly akin, though, isn't it, John, to the cache pollution problems that make it pretty much a requirement to run 2 separate nameservers: one for recursion and caching, and the other to be authoritative? Run a separate relay server, with some authentication, for users connecting from outside your AS. > > The only reason I can think of that would stop this would be if a > > user subscribes to earthlink, but uses a UUnet dialin, that customer's > > software would be set up to use the Earthlink SMTP servers. > > In our case, this doesn't help since we and all the other local ISPs block > relay access, so you have to use the mail server of the ISP you are > currently connected to. Hold it. Didn't you just say the opposite above? I think I'm confused. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
|