[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What if these "legitimate" users wanted to send mail to my customers using some
> > oddball protocol someone made up? The mail can be just as legitimate, but why
> > do I have to start putting up servers for every protocol someone wants to make?
>
> Isn't that a _totally_ different thing? This has nothing to do with the
> matter. The sender would have to pass his protocol trough a system which
> make a conversion. It's called a gateway.
Of course it's different. Showing difference doesn't work if you show something
that is the same thing.
The sender may well not be converting anything. If the sender's and receiver's
systems are entirely proprietary from MUA to MUA, that isn't conversion. But
whether it is or isn't does not matter. If they want to do something weird and
if I don't support it where they need me to support it, then they are out of
luck unless they can convince me of the worth of supporting it (and for their
account alone it probably isn't).
> > I do _not_ support "sending mail" by means of an ssh session that invokes the
> > program to inject mail. Yet such a method could indeed function, and thus make
> > those who want to use it "legitimate". So I'll decide to not offer that service
> > (of receiving mail from those who want to send it by ssh) unless I come to see
> > a business case for offering it.
>
> I think this has nothing to do with our discussing matter.
It has everything to do with it. The issue is whether an ISP should be required
to specifically handle things that are unusual. You might not think your way is
unusual, but I do.
> > Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
> > delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
>
> Normal according to what? An RFC? Or to you?
Normal as in most common. It happens to be RFC'd, but that's not my basis. If
99% of the market wants to use SSH instead of SMTP, I'd go with that. That's the
way business works.
If large numbers of people want to send mail direct from a dialup to my server and
large numbers of my customers want to receive it, then it is "normal". But that's
not the case at all (when discounting spammers).
> > Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
>
> Yes.
The ISP is utl.pt?
> > SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
>
> Yes mine runs better. Because:
>
> 1- It runs qmail.
> 2- the queue only has my own messages, i don't share it with someone else,
> thus i don't have have to share delivery time with someone else (and
> believe it, i would have to share it with a lot of people)
> 3- The smtp relay machine is sometimes overloaded (not to mention down)
> It handles SMTP, HTTP,shell accounts, pop and who knows what else.
> 4- I don't trust the admins (it's bad enough, the messages i lose due to
> bouncing cause of misconfigurations and other 'things')
> 5- I not exactly when the mail has arrived, if i use the relay i can only
> hope it has arrived.
I can understand why you want to do what you do. I would want to do so if I were
in your place, as well. But I also realize others have no obligation to accept
it like that, since it is not the usual way things are done.
You really really really really really really need to get a better ISP. And "get"
may be anything from forcing the issue in your government politics to showing to
your news media of the PTT incompetence.
If things are so closed and tight in your country, how is it that you are sure that
running an SMTP server is even legal and that they just haven't bother to block you,
yet (perhaps due to incompetence)?
Another option you might have is to rent a dedicated or colocated server in another
country and tunnel in. Or I might even consider leasing tunnels into mine. Your
PTT doesn't block tunnels do they? The vppp program can "tunnel" on any TCP port,
so it would be pretty hard for them to block it, anyway.
BTW, competition does indeed help to improve the quality of services, because those
whose don't have quality enough to keep the customer base happy will switch to some
other provider. The lack of it probably explains why the PTT there is so bad (as
you say).
> > server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
> > to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
>
> Why isn't my server legitimate?
The exact rule to determine that is not well established. But one way to possibly
do so is if your server has an MX record. And to be sure your server name is not
forged, your IP address would need a PTR that names your server, and your A record(s)
identify your IP and include the MX pointing back to your server. You need a static
IP for that.
So how do you receive your mail? Does it really come to your server?
> starting delivery 1161: msg 25817 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> delivery 1161: success:
>
>206.97.151.5_accepted_message../Remote_host_said:_250_GAA21302_Message_accepted_for_delivery/
>
> It seems your server hasn't any problems with mine.
Because I have not implemented anything to actually block it. I don't even
have qmail on this server (it's going on another project). Just because I do
not block something does not mean I offer it. If the costs of not blocking
it exceed the costs of blocking it, then I will block it. If the profits of
offering it exceed the loss of not offering it, I will offer it.
> > Are you running your own SMTP server somewhere else, like at work?
>
> Nope i'm running it at home.
>
> > Are you running something that only appears to be an SMTP server, such as
> > "Spam Master 2000 Gold"?
>
> Nope i'm running qmail, just like you.
Well, I'm still on sendmail on this machine. I have qmail on a machine at home
for testing.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
