On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 09:44:58AM -0800, Racer X wrote:
> >Sure. It's a false economy. What if the mail doesn't go through?
> >What if the destination host blocks mail from dialups? I wouldn't
> >even begin to consider sending mail directly from any national
> >provider of dialup service (which is what I presume you're using,
> >since you indicate that you're not making a long-distance call).
>
> One thing that hasn't been considered - what if you're dialing up through
> a responsible ISP who doesn't let their users send mail directly out, by
> blocking outbound SMTP connections from dialups?
>
> We did this about 3 months ago after some recurrent and vicious spammers.
> Since then, we've had exactly 2 complaints about the procedure, both of
> which were resolved after we informed the customer that we did this as an
> anti-spam measure.
Here in The Netherlands, this is prohibited by the NLIP (assocation of ISPs).
One member is currently in violation, but I don't expect them to last as a
member for long. The policy over here is to filter nothing _except_ at user's
request or at least with user's permission.
> I had my reservations about this policy at first, but given the problems
> it's solved so far, I must say it's been a good move. It forces spammers
> to go directly through our mail server, where we can keep an eye out for
> behavior that looks like spam.
The provider I mentioned that _does_ block port 25 is also the most popular
with spammers over here. They have fast relays :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
<squeezer> AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE | Peter van Dijk
<squeezer> hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<squeezer> @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d
<squeezer> $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37); |
<squeezer> $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99); | * blah *
