Lazy network operators

Wed Apr 14 17:47:16 UTC 2004

On 14-apr-04, at 17:45, JC Dill wrote:

>> I understand your frustration, but the approach of blocking port 25 
>> isn't the right one. It may be convenient for you, but ...

> Dood, this *exact* argument was made ~10 years ago against closing 
> open relays.  So, do you think that everyone should just open their 
> servers to relaying for anyone, since closing all the open relays has 
> proven to be inconvenient for some, and not a 100% effective solution?

Hm... "If you go faster than 30 km/h in a train the air will be sucked 
out and everyone inside will suffocate" vs "if you fly through the 
stratosphere in an airplane without a closed cabin the air will be 
sucked out and everyone inside will suffocate". So just because the 
former turned out incorrect the latter is as well?

Now one could view a typical Windows box behind a broadband connection 
to be functionally equivalent to an open relay, in which case "closing 
the relay" would make sense, as open relays allow malicious third 
parties to unload their garbage upon the net with little recourse. 
However, filtering TCP port 25 is bad not just because it is massively 
inconvenient for many people (ever work in support?) but also because 
this is fixing an application layer problem at the transport layer, 
which is bad both architecturally and performance wise. (And yes, all 
those CPU or ASIC cycles inspecting every single packet, including the 
99% that aren't email in the first place, cost real power that causes 
real CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, etc...) If despite this, 
filtering port 25 would actually have a decent chance of helping us get 
rid of spam, maybe, just maybe we should consider it. But as I've said 
before: spam was there when Windows was too stupid to even be 
vulnerable to anything coming in from the net, and the likeliness of 
global cooperation within a reasonable timeframe is close to zero 
anyway.

> p.s.  Please do not cc me on replies to the list.  Please reply to the 
> list only, or to me only (as you prefer) but not to both.

Maybe the list should add a reply-to? Or am I starting another flamewar 
here?