> I beg to disagree. Blocking port 25 is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Ridiculous, net neutrality has nothing to do with service level agreements. Residential service does not in any way, shape or form equate to requiring full SMTP services to be able to run your own full blown mail server, nor does denying access to port 25 for 'normal' residential users impact their ability to access the internet or send/receive email. If you want that level of service, upgrade to a service that provides it, and that will be at least minimally monitored for abuse (it is in the ISPs best interest to avoid getting their IP addresses on blacklists). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I pay for a connection to the internet. Provided I don't do anything illegal, I should be allowed to pass whatever traffic I want on it - even SMTP traffic. Blocking outgoing port 25 is not a solution. An example: what if I own an SMTP server somewhere else, and want to test it from my home one evening? Why should I be forced to use an ISP's mail server to send an email? But this is getting a bit OT for this list I think. Bottom line, ISPs should not block any traffic or any ports. That doesn't mean they should guarantee any level of uptime or speed (however whatever measure they apply should be uniform across all protocols), but the actual contents that is passed should not be touched. Also, ISP should *never* monitor traffic. This is a violation of privacy rights, net neutrality, as well implicates the ISP in a lot of legal areas that they would want to avoid (example: EU laws says that if an ISP it not aware of any illegal activity/content, then they are not doing anything wrong. If they monitor traffic, they become liable for everything illegal that is passed.) At the very least, if an ISP blocks port 25, then a simple phone call should allow this to be unblocked.
