I have a MAJOR problem with this. I have my own mailhost and I do work
for a specific domain (UItimateTV.com). When I am on my primary ISP,
all is well. I send mail to the appropriate mailhost for whatever
domain the mail is from.
When I am on my backup ISP, I am unable to send out ANY mail because it
blocks out all the port 25 accesses. I had given my inlaws an email
account on our server/domain and we allowed them (will full
knowledge/permission of the ISP) to use our backup account since we were
paying for it and not using it. When the ISP instituted this policy, it
screwed them over. We finally go them an email account at the backup
ISP.
Is this legitimate ? I mean, I am trying to use a mail host for which I
am fully allowed to (Hell! I am in charge of the other mailers) and am
being blocked. When my primary internet account was down, I was unable
to send mail for 3 days !!!
To me the blocking of port 25 is more of a CYA for the ISP. Nothing
more, it benefits no one but the ISP. I can understand why an ISP would
do it, but there must be better mechanisms for blocking spam ....
Matt Soffen
Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
> ----------
> From: Racer X[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 12:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Three solutions for spam
>
> >Sure. It's a false economy. What if the mail doesn't go through?
> >What if the destination host blocks mail from dialups? I wouldn't
> >even begin to consider sending mail directly from any national
> >provider of dialup service (which is what I presume you're using,
> >since you indicate that you're not making a long-distance call).
>
> One thing that hasn't been considered - what if you're dialing up
> through
> a responsible ISP who doesn't let their users send mail directly out,
> by
> blocking outbound SMTP connections from dialups?
>
> We did this about 3 months ago after some recurrent and vicious
> spammers.
> Since then, we've had exactly 2 complaints about the procedure, both
> of
> which were resolved after we informed the customer that we did this as
> an
> anti-spam measure.
>
> I had my reservations about this policy at first, but given the
> problems
> it's solved so far, I must say it's been a good move. It forces
> spammers
> to go directly through our mail server, where we can keep an eye out
> for
> behavior that looks like spam.
>
> shag
>
>
