David Akin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> FWIW: AOL Canada, the Canadian @Home partners, and most of the mom-and-pop
> ISPs I've used also don't allow their subscribers to use anyone's else SMTP
> servers.(You can use any POP server you want, though, to receive mail.)
"Allow" is such a funny word here. I use @home. Check my headers.
My mail is flowing freely via SMTP.
> If you want all outgoing mail to be untraceable -- use someone's Web mail
> from a public library or other public terminal, buy a premium service like
> Freedom from ZKS or use an anonymizing service.
This is the real point. People who are afraid Sympatico is trying to
help the spooks trace their mail really have their head in the wrong
place.
Just as with the "no running servers on our network" policy, or "no
support for Linux" policy, this is a stick for them to hit you with if
you become a problem. Why, besides dissatisfaction with their service,
and perhaps telecommuting, would you use a different SMTP port?
Probably to make someone's life somewhere difficult, whether through
spam or [D]DoS.
What would make the policy real, rather than a stick to whack people
with if they become troublemakers, is if they shut off outgoing port 25
at their NAPs. Then, maybe, you might say they're serious.
> There's lots of issues that cypherpunks and cybercitizens ought to raise
> awareness and fight for but is the right to use any SMTP server really that
> important?
No, it's not.
-Steve
