Peter Keel wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for an intervention on the so called "customer" side.
Look, I wouldn't want my ISP to do that kind of bollocks, like auto-proxying me. So I sure as hell take care that the ISP I work
for doesn't do such. The "so called" customer-side may very well
have its own professionals, who really do not like being baby-
sitted (or big-brothered...). That's why I object against such
You're mixing up two issues:
* "Free" or "Unregistered" dialup * Situations where you know your customer.
Anybody using "free" dialups must cope with certain restrictions, e.g. you don't get your own host/domain name on the IP you get assigned. A restriction on outbound port 25 is both a reasonable and appropriate measure to limit spam in /those/ setups.
Transparent proxying etc. in other situations is neither reasonable nor appropriate IMHO, and should be only done in rare circumstances.
OTOH, portbased blocking is not sufficient to deal with spam or any other form of abuse.
-- Matthias
---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
