RE: Should I use greylisting

[ha...@t-online.de]

>> 
>> 
>> >I am a bit worried about blocking people with dynamic IP addresses say from
>> >their ISP, if they "inherit" an IP address recently used by an infected PC
>> >they will still be in the RBL and get blocked.
>> 
>> Machines on dynamic IPs should not be doing direct-to-MX submission, 
>> so block their entire networks with no looking back, eg use spamhaus 
>> PBL.  In the spam business, nice, meticulous, conscientious people 
>> always get screwed.
>> 
>> The network operators should be blocking access  from their 
>> subscriber access networks to port 25.
>> 
Hi,
this last point means that their customers are bound to use the network operator's smtp for sending.
While I generally believe that end users should send thru a smarthost, I also think it is a bad
idea to restrict them to the network provider's smarthost. They might prefer to send via their
company's SMTP instead

Wolfgang

>> Len
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Should I use greylisting

[LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>]

On 29-Jan-2007, at 12:24, hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:
> While I generally believe that end users should send thru a  
> smarthost, I also think it is a bad idea to restrict them to the  
> network provider's smarthost. They might prefer to send via their  
> company's SMTP instead

That's what port 587 (preferably with AUTH) is for. In this day and  
age it is totally unacceptable for an ISP to allow dynamic IPs access  
through port 25 to anything but the ISP's mail server.

THe issue comes with braindead ISPs that block port 25 for users with  
fixed IPs as well.

-- 
We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high
We will run free with the Buffalo or die

Re: Should I use greylisting

[Steve Bertrand <ia...@ibctech.ca>]

hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am a bit worried about blocking people with dynamic IP addresses say from
>>>> their ISP, if they "inherit" an IP address recently used by an infected PC
>>>> they will still be in the RBL and get blocked.
>>> Machines on dynamic IPs should not be doing direct-to-MX submission, 
>>> so block their entire networks with no looking back, eg use spamhaus 
>>> PBL.  In the spam business, nice, meticulous, conscientious people 
>>> always get screwed.
>>>
>>> The network operators should be blocking access  from their 
>>> subscriber access networks to port 25.
>>>
> Hi,
> this last point means that their customers are bound to use the network operator's smtp for sending.
> While I generally believe that end users should send thru a smarthost, I also think it is a bad
> idea to restrict them to the network provider's smarthost. They might prefer to send via their
> company's SMTP instead

...which is exactly the reason SMTP Auth operating over port 587 exists.

Steve