On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:36:46 +0800, Bill Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
>
> Not a surprise. Business broadband usually offers more flexibility w/r
> rulesets, as most businesses will utilize an off-site mailserver.
SWBell is blocking port 25 on *all*, both consumer and business (they
say). Their announcement last year applied to both classes of
accounts and that's verified by a friend using a business class
account in another SWBell region who got his port 25 access cut off on
his account recently (he'd missed the announcement and SWBell had an
old no-longer-valid email for him).
> It isn't really an issue of whether port 25 is intercepted by
> 'connectivity' ISP's.
> In and of itself that doesn't slow down spambastard as much as it
> inconveniences others (not a lot in either case).
It would immensely cut down the spam to my server, more than 85% of it
comes from zombies that have no business doing direct-to-MX.
> It is about *managing access* to port 25 (and all other smtp ports).
>
> SSL/TLS and proper auth mechanisms, for example.
Absolutely. I would much prefer the spam got forced out the ISPs'
MTAs, make them face the issue and do something about it instead of
ignoring it, handing IP block lists to AOL while leaving the rest of
us to block as we can. Anyone running a mail server should have
proper rDNS set up thru their ISP (which then also allows the ISP to
be aware of that mail server and do something if it starts spewing
spam). Anyone wanting to connect to an offsite MTA can and should use
port 587 or 443 as per the RFCs.
--
hth,
Stephanie
Links blog:
http://alice.ttlg.net/links/
Glenfinnan Web Hosting:
http://www.glenfinnan.net/
