Sigh, ok I wasn't clear here. We are blocking our dialup ports from accessing Port 25 outbound without going through a device that limits the numbers of emails that they can send. This prevents OUR customers from using other's RELAYS. (This IS something UUnet could impelement). It operates as something along the lines of a know your customer, in that it will 99% stop throw away dialups from using relays. And it won't break people's wholesale dialup business, like complete blocking would. Key thing is RATE limiting. Fundmentally the same as source address ingress filtering, only smarter. The same request is made that I'm not interested in the legal side unless you are licensed to pratice law in Texas. (In which case you would know better than to give out random legal advice in the first place.) In message <199812222129.PAA19820@freeside.fc.net>, Jeremy Porter writes:
Has anyone got any operational experience with blocking Port 25 from dialup blocks or instituting a "transparent" proxy system that limits email volume? I will summarize and respect privacy requests regarding information. This looks to be fairly straightfoward to do with NAT/"L4 switch" (I hate that term), such as a Alteon or Foundry.
I would like to have something like this in operation by end of Q1 99, but want to minimize or eliminate customer pain. This way anyone running proxies on downstream sites, or dialup farms, would have not excuse to not prevent dialup accounts from sending to relays.
Those of you in my .procmailrc need not reply, as I won't see it anyway, as we are completely aware of the legal issues involved and know what we are doing.
--- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net