Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 09:56 +0000, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>> This is a SpamHaus controlled, but provider provided (if you see what I
>> mean) list which is described as follows:
>>
>> "The Spamhaus PBL is a DNSBL database of end-user IP address ranges
>> which should not be delivering unauthenticated SMTP email to any
>> Internet mail server except those provided for specifically by an ISP
>> for that customer's use. The PBL helps networks enforce their Acceptable
>> Use Policy for dynamic and non-MTA customer IP ranges."
>>
>> It went into beta yesterday evening GMT.
>>
>> There is a method whereby an end user can request supression of a given
>> IP address, and it looks like the big UK players are already submitting
>> their space to it - I know NTL/Telewest have, as that's who I use.
>>
>> Perhaps this is the new generation of "DUL"?
>
> what's the point? these providers should block port 25 instead. the
> providers who don't care to block that port, won't bother to register
> their networks in PBL either.
>
Providers shouldn't block port 25. This is against freedom on the
internet in my mind. What if you want to use a dynamic DSL address to
monitor your SMTP server with nagios or the like? Blocking port 25 is
blocking legal access to this port and also blocking about a 65535th of
the internet. However they should report it as an IP with a blocking
policy for SMTP (with PBL for example). Also with the blocking of port
25, we are forced to use port 587 (or 465) for authenticated SMTP
submission, which is not clear at all for home users to configure.
Clearly, it's a shame ISPs block ports due to poor windows(TM) security
because it just make things worst for admins. MS discovered the internet
very late and is now destroying it slowly.
