Outgoing SMTP Servers

Thu Oct 27 18:24:22 UTC 2011

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:50 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:53:34 -0000, Brian Johnson said:
>
>> It is interesting that some people who fully understand that the Internet is
>> composed of many networks run by people with different interests can say
>what
>> is best for the Internet as a whole. How my organization (or yours or
>anybody
>> else's) runs our network, is between us and our paying users.
>
>That claim is true *ONLY* to the extent that 'how your organization runs
>your network' does _not_ have an adverse effect on other peoples networks.
>
>The fact of the matter is that you do not have a viable business without
>the collective 'tolerance'/'approval' of the rest of the world.
>

OK.

>You, and your organization, need them far more than they need you.
>

Argumentative and unnecessary.

>_How_ you pro-actively ensure spam does not exit from your network IS your
>business.
>
>That you *do* do so _is_ within the action purveiw of the 'rest of the world'.
>

Judge me as you will. My customers will determine if I change this policy. Their judgment is all that matters in this circumstance as the external Internet community has the access that the Internet community needs relative to this instance.

>"Doing so" requires that you _actively_ monitor the behavior of your
>customers
>and have 'ways and means' in place to (a) detect, and (b) _stop_ immediately
>upon detection, such abusive behavior by your customers.
>
>One of the 'easiest', and most _cost-effective_ ways of doing so *is* to
>force all outgoing mail from your customers through a 'choke point' for
>examination/filtering/blckcing.
>
>The simplest way of doing that, *without* running afoul of 'wiretapping'
>statutes. is to require, by policy and by blocking direct external access,
>that customer out-bound email traffic go through your servers, and doing
>the necessary 'inspection' there.
>
>

I think you support my position, but I could be convinced otherwise. :)

Be careful with you punctuation. I got lost a few times there :)

- Brian