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..)?
Well, the point with submission (587) is that it is authenticated. As such it is very easy to pinpoint which exact user is doing this. Of course now they could steal the credentials and send it over their botnet to another host (oh oh I give ideas away ;) but it should be fairly easy for the ISP to block that single account from spamming the world. Much easier than "oh that IP, where did that hacked dsl line asking for a new dhcp go to" which is also easy with the right management tools but clearly no ISP seem to have that. At least not the ones that need it, the clued ones do have those mechanisms in place and either filter that specific customer directly putting them into a quarantine zone and/or call the customer up. [..] > Spam will be there as long as you can make money with it. Yep ;) Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
