drharry
join:2001-02-12
Hopatcong, NJ
| Re: Blocking port 25? Privacy invasion! said by richb01803:
I for one would not want my email to flow through an ISP's mail server!
And how else did you expect to send email?
said by richb01803:
Forgetting the issue of how non-scalable most mail servers are, and therefore how prone to outages they are, do you really want all your email flowing through a Carnivore data-sucking attachment directly into the watchful eyes of a government or an ISP?...
It would appear you have no choice.
But ISP's blocking port 25 is old news. Earthlink has been doing this to former Netcom customers for well over two years now. | |
|
 
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| Re: Blocking port 25? Privacy invasion! said by drharry:
And how else did you expect to send email?
It goes directly from my Linux system to the recipient's SMTP server. It does not go through any email servers at my ISP (AT&T Broadband, or in the case of my workplace, Genuity) unless of course the recipient's mailbox is at that ISP. | |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by drharry:
But ISP's blocking port 25 is old news. Earthlink has been doing this to former Netcom customers for well over two years now.
And they have had it implemented wrong for those two years. A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out. | |
|
 |
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| Re: Blocking port 25? Privacy invasion! said by RARPSL:
said by drharry:
A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out.
Either way, it still forces all outbound SMTP traffic through an outage-prone, packet-sniffing-prone bottleneck. Ugh.
If this is the wave of the future I'm not too happy about that.
There are other ways to tackle the spam problem without this sledgehammer approach. | |
|
| |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
|  Re: Blocking port 25? Privacy invasion!
said by richb01803:
said by RARPSL:
said by drharry:
A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out.
Either way, it still forces all outbound SMTP traffic through an outage-prone, packet-sniffing-prone bottleneck. Ugh.
If this is the wave of the future I'm not too happy about that.
There are other ways to tackle the spam problem without this sledgehammer approach.
I agree. As for PORT25 blocking, how hard is it to have the ISP (when it gets the "CONNECT ME TO ISPX's SMTP SERVER" request) do its own connect to the server and see if it offers a AUTH response to the EHLO (then just drop the connection via QUIT)? Such a response could then trigger a "Let the user get his connection" action since the SMTP server can be considered as "SPAM LOCKED DOWN" and acceptable as a connection target. | |
|
|
|
|
