[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/29/2007 05:53:01
PM:
I'm not even that sure it would help the spam problem. The majority
of the spam I receive these days come via ISP mail servers or open
relays. This may of course simply mean that I'm not receiving a
normal pattern of spam...
I don't think
Rob MacGregor wrote:
On 1/29/07, Ben Kamen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, I meant to control port 25 egress from nets like Cable/DSL/Dialup
users...
Me, personally, I'd hate it. I can deliver mail faster and more
reliably (from past experience) than my ISP. When that's not an
option I
Ben Kamen wrote:
Ok, so port:25 blocking still seems to be a bad idea for the
mostpart because ISP's (in general) still do not have their act
together. (and looking at how they spend their money probably never
will.)
Actually, I think blocking port 25 by default is an excellent idea
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:39 AM -0500 David F. Skoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think blocking port 25 by default is an excellent idea
providing you unblock it if people ask for that. Since the vast
majority of computer users never bother to change defaults, blocking port
25
Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:39 AM -0500 David F. Skoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think blocking port 25 by default is an excellent idea
providing you unblock it if people ask for that. Since the vast
majority of computer users never bother to change
John Rudd wrote:
For defaults, don't forget IMAP, outbound ssh, outbound passive ftp, and
the other simple ones.
But, yeah... agree in principle. Block all but the REALLY
common/basics, provide a web interface (accessible only from client
networks, not from the outside world) for
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:47:26AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Actually, I think blocking port 25 by default is an excellent idea
providing you unblock it if people ask for that. Since the vast
majority of computer users never bother to change defaults, blocking port
25 by default will
Ben Kamen wrote:
What's people's take on just blocking port:25 altogether at this point?
We have 587 for submission and that's what I use exclusively for me.
On the one hand: YES! Great idea!
On the other hand: NO! Terrible idea!
For *most* people, it's a great idea. I think ISPs should
What's people's take on just blocking port:25 altogether at this point?
Err, How would my server deliver normal, legitimate email to your servers
addressed to you, etc.
regards,
KAM
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate
Err, How would my server deliver normal, legitimate email to your
servers addressed to you, etc.
I suspect Ben meant: What's the consensus on blocking outbound
port 25 for home users? (DSL/Cable-Modem/Dialup)
I guess so, but if he is accepting mail on 587, I'm assuming he is then
trying to
Ben Kamen wrote:
David F. Skoll wrote:
I suspect Ben meant: What's the consensus on blocking outbound
port 25 for home users? (DSL/Cable-Modem/Dialup)
Yea, I meant to control port 25 egress from nets like Cable/DSL/Dialup
users...
We have 2 rules in our pppoe servers, one that allows
Ben Kamen wrote:
The ISP which my mail servers is on tests my server all the time for
open-ness.
It's fun to watch the tests fail. (or pass depending on how you look
at it. ;) )
Reminds me of when I had Footguy (http://www.waste.org/footguy/)
running on port 25 of my firewall and I received
Ben Kamen wrote:
Yea, I meant to control port 25 egress from nets like Cable/DSL/Dialup users...
And Dave's right on both his items good and bad. :D
The ISP which my mail servers is on tests my server all the time for
open-ness.
It's fun to watch the tests fail. (or pass depending on how you
13 matches
Mail list logo
