On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
>>> measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
>>> practice to bidirectional brokenness.
>>
>> Since at least part of your premise ('ineffective anti-spam measures') has
>> been objectively proven false to fact for many years, I guess we can ignore
>> the rest of your note.
>>
> Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less spam
> hitting our networks?
> That's really news to me... I'm still seeing an ever increasing number of
> attempts to deliver spam on my mailservers.
>
> I'd say that it has been pretty ineffective.
I'm not even going to bother replying with the multiple fallacies / logical
errors you have made. I've known you for too long to assume you are that
stupid, so I have to assume you are trolling. Which is beneath you.
>> Also, just so everyone doesn't think I'm in favor of "damaging" the network,
>> I would much prefer a completely open 'Net. Who wouldn't? Since that is
>> not possible, we have to do what we can to damage the network as little as
>> possible. Port 25 blocking is completely unnoticeable to something on the
>> order of 5-nines worth of users, and the rest should know how to get around
>> it with a minimum of fuss (including things like "ask your provider to
>> unblock" in many cases).
>>
> Not really true. First, i dispute your 5-nines figure
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole. Let's call it 3 nines. And before you dispute
that more than 1 in a thousand notice, I'd like to see even the slightest
shread of evidence.
> second, yes, i can usually get around it, but seems each network requires a
> different workaround.
My turn to dispute. SSH tunnels work on all but one network I've tried, even
on port 22. And I've tried quite a few networks. Oh, and 100% of those
networks allowed VPN.
If you mean home networks require different hops to get port 25 opened, how
many homes do you have?
> Since, like many of us, I use a lot of transient networks, having to
> reconfigure for each unique set of brokenness is actually wasting more of my
> time than the spam this brokenness was alleged to prevent.
First, life sux. I'm OK causing you more pain to save the 'Net from devolving
into a useless mass of pure abuse.
Second, if you are not following the RFCs and using the submit port, you get no
sympathy.
Third, see above with SSH tunnels & VPN.
> I suppose I should just shut up and run an instance of my SMTP daemon on port
> 80. After all, since IPv4 addresses are so abundant, rather than use port
> numbers for services, let's use IP addresses and force everything to ports 80
> and 443.
Or you could follow the rules and use SUBMIT.
But I agree with the "just shut up" part. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
