On 02/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <chris@???> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:01:23PM +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > On 02/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <chris@???> wrote:
> [...]
> > > I find this ``everyone competent enough to run a mail
> > > server can afford a leased line'' theory very attractive.
> > > Out of interest, is there any evidence for it?
> > >
> >
> > Who mentioned a leased line? A hosted VPS or a subscription to an
> > authenticated mail forwarding service shouldn't break the bank. You're
> > swimming against the tide in a big way if you're campaigning for the
> > lifting of port 25 blocks (whether legal or technical).
>
> I asked about evidence, rather than consensus prejudice,
> for a reason.
Not sure what your point is. There's plenty of evidence that the huge
majority of spam comes from compromised zombies doing direct-to-MX
SMTP. ISPs that block port 25 simply don't appear on the radar.
(Have a look for *.pol.co.uk - represents one of the UK's biggest
broadband providers ( circa 1.2M ADSL subs) - ever seen any zombie
spam from them?)
Yep, there's collateral damage from this policy - people can't run
mail servers on connections through such providers. There are
well-documented other ways for such people to run mail servers. The
greater good, I'm afraid.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???
