Spam Control Considered Harmful
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Thu Oct 30 02:36:02 UTC 1997
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
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.
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
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
More information about the NANOG