On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>When I am on my backup ISP, I am unable to send out ANY mail because it
>blocks out all the port 25 accesses.
ALL? I doubt it. I'm willing to bet they have a mailserver
that accepts port 25 connections from the dialups, and
relays the mail.
>When my primary internet account was down, I was unable
>to send mail for 3 days !!!
Why ? Tell your MTA that today you have a smarthost such'n'such,
and roll out your mail.
If your primary ISP did that too, you'd just have to change the
smarthost in your startup scripts.
>To me the blocking of port 25 is more of a CYA for the ISP. Nothing
>more, it benefits no one but the ISP.
Wrong. It stops the whackamole spammers, responsible for a great
deal of the spam today (I'd guess between 40 and 90%, mrsam
surely has some stats to share), and the most difficult to stop.
>but there must be better mechanisms for blocking spam ....
It is an essential part for an ISP.
If you are a polite client as well as being responsible and
willing to sign a paper or two, an ISP will probably make an
exception for you.
I would consider that blocking port 25 is a positive thing when
choosing an ISP; I see that 1) the ISP is anti-spam, and I won't
find myself on some block-list somewhere, and 2) that they are
capable of running round-the-clock servers reliably.
Of course, if their mailserver falls down, that will be a
negative impression. But since they take my incoming mail too,
they'd better have functioning mailservers anyway, right?
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
