Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Let me also say that given the recent discussion about whether
> blocking dynamically assigned IP addresses for SMTP traffic is a good
> thing or a bad thing, I can say that the email/network team are engaged in
> discussion of the policy. Our policy will remain in place during that
> discussion, and early indicuations suggest that the policy will continue,
> but everything that has been said on the matter on this list has been
> read by me and my immediate boss (also on this list).
I personally think it's a bad idea. David has proved that this "policy"
does block legitimate mail, which is not good. These lists assume,
quite frankly, that all dialup users are spammers. Is that a valid
assumption? No. I do not send UBE, never have, never will, either from
my dialup account or any other machine I may have access to. Blocking
*all* dialup users just because some of them send UBE is too ridiculous
for words. These lists won't stop them sending UBE through their ISP's
smarthost, or finding an open relay (although ORBS helps there, I
beleive) and hijacking that.
By the insane logic used by these lists, ISPs may as well just stop
dialup users accessing any machines outside of their own network. I
mean, why stop at smtp? Why not *force* all users of an ISP to use
the ISP's web proxy servers? Access to any pop3 servers except that
belonging to the ISP wouldn't be allowed. The only way to get a file by
ftp would be to encapsulate the request in an http request via the proxy
server, or use a service like Demon's batchftp, since FTP servers will
block access from dialup users.
--
Ben Smithurst
ben@???
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
