Matthew Crocker wrote: Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc. Michel.
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc.
And this assumes your upstream does a better job than you do on running mail.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the window by AOL in this policy change is "be strict in what you send, and liberal in what you accept". I'll gladly publish my dialup loozer list in a voluntary RBL so that other sites won't be forced to accept mail from hit and run spammers, but broadband connected users should have the right to run their own SMTP, and I don't trust AOL to be able to determine one from the other. Plus, it would be much better to fix SMTP once and for all than to create an e-mail schema that would allow Ashcroft and his gang of wrinkly re-hashed reaganite hawks any access to data that they could use to further violate individual citizen's privacy. Jay Stewart "You can't enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him." - Robert Anson Heinlein -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of David Lesher Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22 AM To: nanog list Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't
have a mailing list that way, etc.
I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the window by AOL in this policy change is "be strict in what you send, and liberal in what you accept".
that policy was wiser when everyone who could get an internet connection saw the merits of it. in an assymetric warfare situation where the good guys follow the above policy and the bad guys do not, it's a slaughter. -- Paul Vixie
In article <DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B06C49C@server2003.arneill- py.sacramento.ca.us>, Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> writes
eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc.
Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping spammers, great for stopping anyone running a mailing list, or mailing to big cc: lists [1]. Hey, on a good day, I can even send 200 one-to-one emails. [1] I regularly get emails with 60-80 people listed, bad practice perhaps, but it's all some users seem to be able to implement. -- Roland Perry
I have RCN cable internet in Chicago and they recently implemented blocking port 25 access outbound. They say that we should just use their mail servers instead. I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations other than when I am connected to them. I have about 2 dozen e-mail accounts defined in outlook express and would have to change the outbound mail server setting for EACH one ever time I move off the RCN connection to one of the other locations from which I work and then back again when I get back to RCN. More than a few people have this problem. I'm lucky because I run the mail server myself and can configure it to listen on an alternative port as well as 25 (authentication is required to relay, though). Again, any provider that wants to start blocking ports should do so only very carefully and should make exceptions for users who need them AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE USER because there will be competitors that will treat the customer better. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:11 Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL
Matthew Crocker wrote: Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc. Michel.
participants (6)
-
David Lesher -
Jay Stewart -
John Palmer -
Michel Py -
Paul Vixie -
Roland Perry