Re: [exim] SpamHaus PBL

--On 7 January 2007 23:23:07 +0100 Renaud Allard <renaud@???> wrote:

>
> Providers shouldn't block port 25.

Yes, they should, for unqualified end-users.

> This is against freedom on the
> internet in my mind.

So is any kind of anti-spam mechanism, perhaps.

> What if you want to use a dynamic DSL address to
> monitor your SMTP server with nagios or the like?

Then buy a service that doesn't block port 25. We should hope that your
provider will qualify you, in some way. Or, they'll open port 25 only to a
specific set of IP addresses for you.

> Blocking port 25 is
> blocking legal access to this port

No, your ISP's terms and conditions specify what you're entitled to.

> and also blocking about a 65535th of
> the internet.

Wow! That's an interesting calculation!

> 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.

So, the mail clients should be fixed.

> 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.

This isn't exclusively a windows problem, I've seen spam spewed by plenty
of Unix boxes. Web servers with dodgy php scripts, and people shelling in
and running simple scripts. Email was insecure on the Internet *by design*
long before MS got involved.


--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex