Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Soffen, Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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 ....
> There is no reason that an ISP cannot block port 25 by default and then
> enable it for any customer that complains.
Of course there is. Blocking port 25 for all their dialup lines is a
simple router configuration. Re-enabling it on a customer-by-customer
basis on dynamic dialups requires software to interact with the terminal
authentication server that they'd probably have to write themselves.
Lots of people scream loudly at an overworked ISP about spam from their
dialups. ISP could (a) improve their tracking and reporting measures and
their abuse staff and cancel spammer accounts faster, (b) spend lots of
time implementing a scheme where they can give their good customers the
same service as they had before, or (c) just do something fast and quick
that reduces service for everyone in a way that 95% of their customers
won't care about and that will get the anti-spam folks off their backs.
Which one do you think they chose?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
