On May 30, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Mr. Borenstein and others like him expect the rest of us to subsidize their $30/month connectivity by dealing with the network abuse of his fellow customers, because they find $30/month comfortable.
Just for the record, I spend plenty more than $30 per month on Internet connectivity, as does my employer. My views on this have nothing to do with the cost of my Internet service, which is why I said nothing about such costs. Since your message seems to be based entirely on a misguided assessment of my motives, there's not much else in it that needs to be answered. (We could argue forever about what constitutes a monopoly, but I doubt any minds would be changed.)
Port 25 blocking may be sometimes necessary simply to preserve the integrity of a network under heavy spam attack. But I believe that a long-term solution is possible that will be both more effective and less restrictive. My own focus is on that long-term planning, and I just can't see port 25 blocking as anything more than a rather problematic stopgap measure in advance of a more spam-resistant infrastructure for SMTP message submission. -- Nathaniel
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
