Subject: RE: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions

From: "Sauer, Damon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:28 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:51 PM
To: Sauer, Damon
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions

>  If they don't do it already, legitimate ISP's should close port 25.

I understand why ISPs do this, but it's a Bad Thing.

My home ISP blocks port 25.  As a result, I can't debug problems with
email from home.

--- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port 25?
I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only server.
It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one.

We need to be providing better ways of solving this problem so that the
Internet can stay transparent.  The last thing I want is for my ISP to
be deciding what kind of traffic I can send to and from my own machines.
(as if port number were a reliable indication of that anyway...)

>  Charge for overuse of SMTP, over a certain level, for commercial
>  email.

if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor
spammers.
 
---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed the
reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to nothing.

>  A DNS type addition would be very helpful.
>  Spammer connects as [196.68.1.12](example address only) and says
>  "mail
> from: [email-masked]" 
> Currently doing a reverse lookup or momandpop.com would show receiving
> SMTP servers but not authorized sending servers. 196.68.1.12 shows up
> as a valid address but is in no way associated with momandpop.com.

it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers.  mobile
users need to do this quite often.

--- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a dialup,
the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home" server for
delivery. (A part that I missed in my explanation, I apologize for the
oversight )

let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP.  it's abuse like this that
illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the
LEC's phone lines.

--- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of my
employer. This is why I have not referenced their name at all. I was truly
hoping that the criticisms to this email would be constructive and ideas
that build upon other ideas.
 I did not take your remarks as constructive at all and I hope that you can
possibly value add in further discussions.

Keith

*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:50 -0500

> --- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port
> 25? I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only
> server. It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one.

oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them $300/month.
mainly it's a bad precedent.  

> ---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed
> the reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to
> nothing.

no it just means I get spammed for Ivory Soap instead of Fireman's Pump.
it's still spam, and it's still obnoxious.

> --- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a
> dialup, the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home"
> server for delivery.

it's also perfectly legitimate to originate mail from a dialup line,
without relaying through some third party's server.

> --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of
> my employer. 

nor did I say that they did.

Keith