> punster@??? (James P. Roberts) writes:
> > What this meant for me was, (after discovering it, when my first AOL
> > using customer signed up), I had to open another port on my server.
>
> Not all AOL dialups seem to be covered by the proxy. They keep adding
new
> dialups, and roll out their proxy coverage a bit later.
This is good to know! So your point about blocking AOL dialups is quite
valid; that is, we cannot depend on AOL to always provide 100% proxy
coverage. But those like myself still have to provide an alternative
port for our own customers who are using AOL. Sigh. Nothing like a
half-ahem job of doing something, eh? ;)
>
> My comments about blocking mail direct from AOL dialups was for
_inbound_
> email to your MXs, not for outbound mail through your mail relays.
>
> srs
>
I understood that part. I was under the impression that some people
were considering looking at headers, in order to determine if a mail
"originated" from an AOL dial-up host, even though it was relayed
through another server. This is the idea I am trying to say would be
bad. (Maybe even before anyone actually thinks seriously about using
it, with any luck.)
To summarize: Do not assume that a mail is spam, just because the
originator used an AOL dial-up, and relayed it through a non-AOL server.
On the other hand, it is perfectly OK to refuse an incoming SMTP
connection directly from any AOL dial-up host; unless, like myself, you
have a specific reason to do allow it, and require proper
authentication.
The problem is the number of open relays out there. Sigh.
Regards,
Jim Roberts
Punster Productions, Inc.
