North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
- From: Jeroen Massar
- Date: Mon Aug 26 19:04:21 2002
Randy Bush wrote:
> >> ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
> >> reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
> > Agreed.
> why not do it to port 80 as well? what the hell, why not do it to all
> ports? who the hell needs an internet anyway, let's all have a telco
> walled garden.
> <string of expletives>
> can we get back to operating the internet, not killing it?
> <another, even longer, string of expletives>
Nice rant Randy, but if you even ever wondered why the wording "Mail
Relay" exists you might see that if an
ISP simply forwards all outgoing tcp port 25 traffic to one of their
relays and protects that from weird spam
addresses as a source and only allowing through configured addressess it
would save you, me and the rest
a load of crap which maybe could "kill the internet"...
We didn't invent stuff like SMTP, POP3, IMAP and stuff to be run on
EVERY single node on the internet.
Indeed it limits your clients, just like a NAT does, just like
firewalling does, but it also saves a load of problems.
And maybe your view is "operating the internet" but some people have a
too busy spam/abuse@ mailbox to be
able to do usefull stuff like tracing ddosses, which is yet another
thing people should do but aren't doing: egress filtering.
If (and if) everybody did that, we wouldn't be seeing spoofed addresses,
rfc1918's and other stuff on the internet either
now would we? So pointing these facts out *HAS* something to do with
"operating the internet". <hint> http://as112.net/ </hint>