hamann.w wrote:
>
> Well, I am customer to an access provider, and have an email address with
> them,
> so I quite naturally use their smarthost
> Now, add in my own domain. If the domain is hosted, one would, of course,
> use the hosts
> SMTP server, and smtp auth
> What happens if the access p
>>
>> Like others here I would want the ISPs to allow outgoing SMTP from their
>> customers only to the ISP's SMTP servers. This is already been done with a
>> lot of ISPs and it's very effective. I think it is a waste of time that it
>> still isn't implemented everywhere. Lots of bots would becom
Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
>
> The core challange in such aproach is to standardize way of blocking
> messages from DUL ranges *in SMTP session* that gives sending MTA a
> chance to use fallback relay (smarthost provided by ISP).
>
> One suggested approach was to use "in greeting message" 5?? re
MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> I already block mail from lots of adsl/cable urls. In the reject
> message I mention the SMTP-server of their ISP so they know what to
> change if they want to send mail to me. I also use the DUL list for
> blocking. Forcing SMTP to go through the ISP h
On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:23 AM, MennovB wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
The very trouble we are in with spam is caused by the fact that
spammers can hide behind several layers of ISPs and forwarders.
The very thing you suggest is the solution IS THE PROBLEM!.
I guess you get different spam then tha
Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> Forcing mail through specific gateways has plusses and minuses. It allows
> for the institution of traffic cops that can block the speeders from
> speeding.
>
The main thing for me is that it would block the bots on the infected
computers from sending out spam/viruses
John Andersen wrote:
>
> The very trouble we are in with spam is caused by the fact that
> spammers can hide behind several layers of ISPs and forwarders.
> The very thing you suggest is the solution IS THE PROBLEM!.
>
I guess you get different spam then than I get on my mailservers..
Spam from
If you can think of a direct-connect-only protocol that would work, I then
defy you to think of a way of preventing a store-and-forward form of routing
and aggregation, such that we would be in exactly the situation we are in
now. How can you tell the difference between a direct connect from X
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 00:05, MennovB wrote:
> Forcing SMTP to go through the ISP has IMHO nothing to do with free-speech
You, sir, are delusional.
> or not, even direct SMTP traffic is passing through routers of the ISP
> anyway so they could monitor it, and you can always encrypt mail if y
Like others here I would want the ISPs to allow outgoing SMTP from their
customers only to the ISP's SMTP servers. This is already been done with a
lot of ISPs and it's very effective. I think it is a waste of time that it
still isn't implemented everywhere. Lots of bots would become useless. I
kn
10 matches
Mail list logo
