> > > would immediately unsubscribe to any isp that decided this was acceptable
> > > behavior on their part.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Your work also has a serious security concern if it allows this you to
> > directly attatch to it's port 25.
>
> No it doesn't, but you do bring up another good point why not to use the
> ISP's mail server. Security. I don't want email to bounce on your box
> and potentially give the ISP's postmaster information they shouldn't be
> having. (Including email about us switching ISP's because we hate their
> email policy. :)
If your mail is sensitive use a proper transport, encrypt it.
>
> Yes, our ISP *could* sniff packets are read our email if they wanted,
> but it would be a breach of contract for them to do so.
No, it would not, I have yet to see any ISP's contract that says such
a thing. Do not attempt to apply common carrier status to ISP's,
that only works if they happen to be CLEC/LEC/IXC/LD's or some such,
and only if they screwed up thier organizationalization to cause the
ISP portion of the business to classify under the common carrier laws.
> Basically, I think not allowing ISP's to allow the Dialup lines to
> forward email as a good thing, but for them to limit was businesses do
> with their IP traffic is simply too big brother'ish, no matter what
> their contract states.
If _we_ don't start to do something about it, big brother _is_ going
to do something about it. Trust me on this one, being a member of the
USPA I know that we are far better off implementing our own (as ISP's)
set of safe gaurds that help eliminate certain undesirable behavior.
5 years ago I could get in a jump plan and not worry about a seat or
a seat belt. Now the FAA has regulated us into mandator seat's and
seat belts. Yes, it improved safety, but the fact that the FAA now
runs around poping surprize inspections cost me more tax payer dollars
for something we all knew we should have been doing all along. I
don't want any more stinking laws!!
Also understand that ISP's can be held legally liable under negligence
law for certain in actions. There are cases on the books that demonstrate
this. Unfortanate, but true non the less.
> I'm as much at risk (or more) from spammers that abuse my mail host as
> they are, so it behooves me to setup my mail machine (and network) to
> 'Do The Right Thing'. Rather than ISP's blocking email, they should
> instead be working with their customers to provide them with expertise
> on how to setup a working/usable mail server.
And we do, for dedicated connect customers ${smtpsmarthost} usally
includes their host as well, but we prefer to have them hand the
mail off to our servers since it is far better designed than 99%
of what any customer can even afford to do.
For the really big clients we even co-locate thier dedicated smtp
smarthost in our facility for them. This saves them traffic on
thier link, puts them on carrier class power and environment, and
gives them a 24x7 tech winnie to fix any problems.
They also have great benifits by agreeing to our standard AUP, they
have RBL filtering done, etc, etc, etc. This is the _service_ part
of ISP that every one else leaves out. If you want IP without service
go talk to someone else. We are about service. A lot of what we implemented
was actually caused by direct requests from customers. We have had
no complaints about it, and I don't get email from the RBL maintainers!
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
