----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us>
> > I'm a bad subscriber, Bill? > > Okay, fair enough. There are no good users *expecting* to send email > direct to a remote port 25 from behind a NAT. There are some good > users who occasionally run slightly sloppy configurations which might > attempt spurious port 25 connections. I do, in fact, expect that. You're alleging that's a bad practice. > Good to block port 25. Not good to knee-jerk ban users whose machines > happen to poke the port once or twice. I wasn't even talking about banning or blocking me. I was, as you'll see in my other response, exercising the end-to-end architecture of the Internet, as members of this list regularly exhort that I should be able to. "This is why we can't have nice things" is not, actually, a sufficiently useful excuse for me to not agree with that principle. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274