> In the part 4 (external submission), the document offers no recommendation > concerning the blocking of SMTP port 25. > Even if the ISP decides not to block it, this ISP should be covered by > this future RFC to legitimate its choice of closing port 25.(a single MAY > can be enough)
Unfortunately, blocking port 25 is controversial. The goal of the current draft is to specify procedures that are well-accepted. So we decided to cite the existence of port 25 blocking -- just so no one thought we missed it -- but to have the document explicitly abstain from taking a position. If we try to add text that legitimizes port 25 blocking, we are certain to get extensive debate that will not result in rough consensus. I say this with such certitude because the issue has been debated in a variety of forums repeatedly. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
