| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> Unfortunately, quite a lot seem to do it. it's a lazy and lame "solution" |
| 3 |
> to spam trojans. Other ISPs forward all port 25 connections to their own |
| 4 |
> SMTP server, so your mail may not be delivered directly, but it is |
| 5 |
> delivered. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Even if port 25 isn't blocked or redirected, it is often worth using your |
| 8 |
> ISP's relay even if you have a broadband connection. Some ISP's block |
| 9 |
> incoming mail from IP ranges allocated to broadband users as an anti-spam |
| 10 |
> measure. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I worked at probably the first nation wide US ISP to block port 25 to |
| 13 |
any address other than our mail servers. While it was sad to see the |
| 14 |
days of free and clear access to smtp dying there really wasn't much |
| 15 |
choice. Blocking outbound port 25 access did a fine job of stopping |
| 16 |
virus email that uses it's own stmp and spam hosts. While annoying to |
| 17 |
some users I don't think it's something you can really get around these |
| 18 |
days. Especially if you'd like to keep your IP space off trigger happy |
| 19 |
blacklists. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
However the above when implemented with port 25 inbound blocking sucks. |
| 22 |
We never did that. And I've seen ISP's require their domain in the From: |
| 23 |
line which breaks anyone's attempt at sending using their personal |
| 24 |
domain. We didn't do retarded things like that either. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
kashani |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives