At 01:33 AM 9/18/2002 -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: > > 3. SMTPAUTH does not require an alternate port, yet it is sufficient for > > ensuring accountability. Hence it is sufficient for dealing with the > > reason that port 25 is blocked, without requiring that it be blocked. > >I don't understand this reasoning. The ISP's justification for blocking >25 except to its own servers is to avoid having its facilities used >for abuse. How would the local ISP enforce use of SMTPAUTH to connect >to some remote ISP?
the claim is that outbound 25 is blocked to prevent spam. however accessing a remote 25 with smtpauth ensures full accountability and, therefore, prevents spam. blocking 25 disables use of this mechanism. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
