-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Anderson wrote: > It's just not an issue. Use Shaw's server as a smarthost, and all's > fine. You aren't filtered, you aren't limited. This is irrelevant. It
It is relevant since their mail service is less than stellar in my experience. I do not use their services since I either provide them myself or have acquired them from a 3rd party (DNS, mail, NNTP, web hosting are examples of services I get elsewhere). > means there's one extra hop in the path your email takes getting to it's > destination. That's out of your control after it leaves your server Actually it also breaks TLS encryption which allows for secure authentication and transmission. This is important, though it does not garner the attention it deserves. Since PGP/gpg is not supported by a wide enough range of email clients TLS at least provides some measure of protection. Even though I have provided a work around (the ports 587 and 465) for my clients, how long until the spammers begin to use these ports as well? At best this policy of Shaw's provides short term respite while doing nothing to combat the actual problem. I would rather they spend our money more effectively. > anyway, so what's the difference. In the old days, prior to High Speed > Internet and always on connections, this was the norm. This is EXACTLY > how email was designed to be used. That's why sendmail uses a smarthost. > Email was designed 30+ years ago. This is EXACTLY why we have the problems we do today. The system was simply not designed for the environment that it is in. Simply blocking an outbound port does little to rectify the actual problem. If anything it gives a false sense of security which leaves us worse off than before. > Any issue you have with a blog breaking because of this is, as far as > I'm concerned, a misconfiguration of the blog. I am less likely to make such a blanket statement about software I have never seen. I can think of legitimate reasons for blog software to behave this way. Especially if it supports TLS/SSL and Auth, which btw, Shaw does not. > This is like saying you're mad that you need to assign a default gateway > to your server. It accomplishes the same thing, and provides the same > restrictions. It should be there. It'll work without one under the > right circumstances (proxy servers, etc), but you should use one. Mail > is the same thing. Did you need it? No. As a residential user, should > you be using it? Yes. All I need/want is a connection. I do not require from Shaw *any* services other than IP routing. Preventing us from acquiring services (DNS, Mail, web space etc.) from 3rd parties is not a good thing, even if we are "residential" customers. This current problem is not all that severe as it is trivial to work around. I worry more about the future, what comes next? This is not the kind pf precedent that we want set. Will they filter port 445 as my portable Rogers connection does, for our protection (this is normally used by Windows/CIFS file sharing, but is also the default management port for IPCOP)? Where will they draw the line? This is a complicated issue, and I am glad that we are discussing it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGeDvRwRXgH3rKGfMRApeiAJ4sWLliect/2M/Mo6D4zfuq/Y1r5QCfcUUo KNJJ+qNfgb9nVlZMJKEBRoQ= =CxtR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
