Apologies for this being a little bit off-charter, but I am afraid
that I couldn't leave this without a reply...
> I have to agree that dialup users of consumer ISP's should not be allowed to
> make port 25 connection outside their network.
/* Then you are as universally wrong as the last person ;) */
> This is NOT censorship. It does not block transmission of mail in any way, it
> simply requires that the mail go through the ISP mail server and is logged.
This is a very scary statement to make. "I do not wish to provide a service
to my users unless I have the ability to see what they are doing".
Limiting the freedom that people enjoy is censorship...
>From Websters Dictionary:
Cen"sor*ship (?), n. The office or power of a censor; as, to stand for a
censorship.
Cen"sor (?), n. [L. censor, fr. censere to value, tax.]
1. (Antiq.) One of two magistrates of Rome who took a register of the
number and property of citizens, and who also exercised the office of
inspector of morals and conduct. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wish to conduct myself in such a way as to connect to remote sites
on port 25. I do not wish my parent ISP to have the ability to log
whom I communicate with. You are stateing a "BigBrother - log everything
is site" approach to try and squish out a practice you disagree with.
That, my friend... is censorship.
> SMTP is not designed for hosts with intermittant connectivity. That is best
> left to an MX host with 24x7 connectivity and the intermittant dialup site can
> collect the mail using UUCP over TCP/IP. Outbound mail could be deposited in
> the same transaction. This is much easier on the system resources of the MX
> host as a queue run is not required every time a remote hosts requests its
> mail, it simply dumps the spool to the requesting site. I MX host for hosts in
> the US, Canada, and Australia in this manner.
Just because you choose to do it in this way does not mean that
this is the correct and only way to do it. (ObEximPraise) One of the
main reasons I use exim is that there are a thousand and one ways
of achieving any requirement I have. It is this "genericism" that imho
is exims greatest strength. I run exim on all my machines at home
(and work), and they all connect directly to the SMTP ports of the
remote machines.
This is the way *I* choose to do it as it gives me far more flexibility,
privacy and visibility of any problems that may arise.
> The purpose of such port 25 blocking is to make it easer for the ISP to kill a
> spamming account as they will have hard copy of the transactions
"The purpose of blocking use of encryption is to make it easier for the
police to kill an account whose activity they don't like, as they will have
hard copy of the transactions"
> and it allows
> remote sites to narrow the number of hosts that they will accept mail from
> making their network more secure and spam free.
How is this so? Surely if you are asking the originators ISP to impliment
the filter, the remote sites won't be able to apply anything.
In your "quest for the truth" you are going to log intentionally
peoples valid and law abiding communication through things such as
anonymous re-mailers... You are infringing on their privacy.
Apart from that... if this is implimented someone will simply set up
an SMTP gateway on port 26 and charge oodles for the modified software ;)
> I can think of no reason that a dialup customer would ever need to connect
> to a distant host directly.
"I can think of no reason that a dialup customer would ever need encryption".
In summary... I am paid to provide internet provision. The moment I
start to provide anything other than straight transit, I loose any claim
to any attempt at a common carrier status.
We all go down the tubes at this point
Regards,
Red.
--
* This is sent by the exim-users mailing list. To unsubscribe send a
mail with subject "unsubscribe" to exim-users-request@???
* Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/
