Subject: [Asrg] RE: article: port 25 blocking (Barry Shein)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:47:03 +0000 (GMT)

>> If we could get the top 50 domains to start "punishing" non-SPF compliant
 > with delays and a gradual migration to a hard fail in unison, would that not
 > prompt other domains to become SPF compliant?

> I'd imagine if the top 50 domains refused e-mail unless one was
wearing a funny hat you'd see a lot more people wearing funny hats.

> But what effect that would have on spam per se, like SPF, is highly
questionable.

Right!!

SPF is one of the stupidest pieces of garbage I've seen get as far as it has... 
evidence of to what absurd lengths people will go to APPEAR to be 'doing 
something', even if it in fact doesn't solve the problem!  (In fact, it does 
VERY little to prevent spamming, and doesn't even really do anything much to 
ensure that E-mail isn't forged.)

Maybe what OUGHT to happen is that systems worldwide ought to stop supporting, 
or maybe "punish", SPF-oriented servers...!  

Let's simply STOP the stupid, blind, ill-conceived rush into half-assed 
"solutions" that AREN'T!!!

[snip]

> OTOH, rate-limiting port 25 probably would be a reasonable compromise
if the rates were set reasonably.

Blocking (or throttling) port 25 only guarantees that SMTP servers will start 
accepting mail on other, non-blocked, non-compromised ports. 

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections!  http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:30:57 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Blocking (or throttling) port 25 only guarantees that SMTP servers
> will start accepting mail on other, non-blocked, non-compromised
> ports.

Please explain why I would want my mail swerver to accept mail on
other ports, given that it's almost certainly spam (because it's only
sent on those ports because the sending machine has port 25 blocked
because its ISP doesn't think it should be sending email directly).

If you want to go out of your way to accept spam, be my guest.  I
don't think most of the rest of us will.

Seth

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:07:07 -0400 (EDT)

> other ports, given that it's almost certainly spam

If you have so few roaming users wanting to send mail through you via
SMTP that mail to that port is "almost certainly spam", then you
probably don't want to do that.

But places with a lot of roaming users, especially the sort of
semi-geek often called a "power user", quite probably do, because the
resulting mail *isn't* "almost certainly spam".

Presumably such things will be using SMTP AUTH or better to secure the
connections; if they don't, yes, they will promptly become spam
conduits and get shunned in consequence.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B