Re: Block direct SMTP

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

>> 
>> Like others here I would want the ISPs to allow outgoing SMTP from their
>> customers only to the ISP's SMTP servers. This is already been done with a
>> lot of ISPs and it's very effective. I think it is a waste of time that it
>> still isn't implemented everywhere. Lots of bots would become useless. I
>> know that it will be difficult to force this in some countries but then I
>> have the choice to block the mail from such countries.
>> I already block mail from lots of adsl/cable urls. In the reject message I
>> mention the SMTP-server of their ISP so they know what to change if they
>> want to send mail to me. I also use the DUL list for blocking.
>> Forcing SMTP to go through the ISP has IMHO nothing to do with free-speech
>> or not, even direct SMTP traffic is passing through routers of the ISP
>> anyway so they could monitor it, and you can always encrypt mail if you want
>> to.
>> Okay, spammers will find other methods probably, but then it can be dealt
>> with centrally by the ISP.
>> And using better protocols than SMTP is a possibility but that takes a lot
>> of time before it is implemented, so for the time being, block it I would
>> say.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Menno van Bennekom
>> -- 
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spam----United-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5609471
>> Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
>> 
>> 
Hi,

one can have mixed feelings about that....

Well, I am customer to an access provider, and have an email address with them,
so I quite naturally use their smarthost
Now, add in my own domain. If the domain is hosted, one would, of course, use the hosts
SMTP server, and smtp auth
What happens if the access privider blocks outgoing smtp and the webhost cannot be
bothered to offer an alternate port, or smtps?

In a different area, we occasionally see discussions about people whose access provider
is selling a "business" static ip access but does not get their act together as far as
dul listings, dns entries etc are concerned

I agree with rejecting mail that cannot be replied to, e.g. made-up domain names.


Wolfgang Hamann

Re: Block direct SMTP

[MennovB <mv...@xs4all.nl>]

hamann.w wrote:
> 
> Well, I am customer to an access provider, and have an email address with
> them,
> so I quite naturally use their smarthost
> Now, add in my own domain. If the domain is hosted, one would, of course,
> use the hosts
> SMTP server, and smtp auth
> What happens if the access privider blocks outgoing smtp and the webhost
> cannot be
> bothered to offer an alternate port, or smtps?
> 
I think if this really would be a major problem it is feasible to let the
ISP make exceptions, like allowing in their firewall outgoing SMTP from you
to the other IP-address. Maybe they can even make this user-configurable in
web-selfservice, say 10 entries to open SMTP to a certain ip-addresses..

hamann.w wrote:
> 
> In a different area, we occasionally see discussions about people whose
> access provider
> is selling a "business" static ip access but does not get their act
> together as far as
> dul listings, dns entries etc are concerned
> 
We've got static addresses and several 'business' contracts but we don't use
direct SMTP. I don't think I would notice it if our addresses would be in
DUL lists. Unless one is checking all hops and giving lots of spam-points to
RCVD_DUL_something, then we may suddenly start sending spam ;-)

Regards
Menno van Bennekom
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spam----United-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5620629
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.