-technical savy home folks. Did you have to prove to
your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did they have you do that?
Thanks,
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Peter Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Date
* Block destination port 25. This prevents bots from sending
email directly to the victims MXes. No one wants to (must not)
run an MTA in a dialup range: Many MXes dont accept emails
orginating from dial-up rages. No one wants to (must not) run an
MX in a dial-up range. The risk of delaying
]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:32:28 +0200
isn't the most spam comming via compromized Computers ?
adsl Dynamic or dialup user you should never trust them if the say the dont
spam.
they have to send mail the way smtp is thought for, that means send email
Hi
This is what I was saying to the guys here at my work. We just need a
small proof that the customer isn't a spammer and we open it up.
However, most of our customers are less-technical savy home folks. Did
you have to prove to your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did
they have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von jonathan
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:31
An: swinog@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email Spam
which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that blocking port
25 outbound
Jonathan wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email Spam
which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that blocking
port 25 outbound will help then they should do it.
Just for the record - I don't have any problem with ISPs blocking ports
or otherwise
Jonathan,
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email
Spam which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that
blocking port 25 outbound will help then they should do it.
If you are a user, why can't you use the ISPs relay server? If you
are a provider you
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:26:39 Markus Wild wrote:
You'd be amazed how many companies operate their own mail servers, even
behind dynamic addresses (in which case they usually use some mailbox
polling mechanism to feed their server from mail from the outside), but
send outgoing mail
Seems to me that the benefit of cutting down on Spam would be worth the
trouble of using port 587...
Blocking port 25 is just a quick-n-dirty 'fix'.
What will happen when virus-writers are going to spam using 587 (The
credentials are stored on the users PC anyway..)?
What would people do to
Adrian Ulrich wrote:
Seems to me that the benefit of cutting down on Spam would be worth the
trouble of using port 587...
Blocking port 25 is just a quick-n-dirty 'fix'.
What will happen when virus-writers are going to spam using 587 (The
credentials are stored on the users PC anyway..)?
experiences, does anyone have pointers to data
on folks that do this?
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Markus Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: swinog@swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:26:39 +0200
Jonathan,
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have
11 matches
Mail list logo
