On 02/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:01:23PM +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > On 02/11/06, Chris Lightfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > > I find this ``everyone competent enough to run a mail > > > server can afford a leased line'' theory very attractive. > > > Out of interest, is there any evidence for it? > > > > > > > Who mentioned a leased line? A hosted VPS or a subscription to an > > authenticated mail forwarding service shouldn't break the bank. You're > > swimming against the tide in a big way if you're campaigning for the > > lifting of port 25 blocks (whether legal or technical). > > I asked about evidence, rather than consensus prejudice, > for a reason.
Not sure what your point is. There's plenty of evidence that the huge majority of spam comes from compromised zombies doing direct-to-MX SMTP. ISPs that block port 25 simply don't appear on the radar. (Have a look for *.pol.co.uk - represents one of the UK's biggest broadband providers ( circa 1.2M ADSL subs) - ever seen any zombie spam from them?) Yep, there's collateral damage from this policy - people can't run mail servers on connections through such providers. There are well-documented other ways for such people to run mail servers. The greater good, I'm afraid. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
