On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:45:41 -0600 (MDT) Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <snip> > As Mr. Borenstein knows, a substantial fraction and probably > most spam is current sent using $30/month consumer accounts. > The spam that is not sent using such accounts is very easily > blocked. As he knows, if providers of those services would > either filter port 25 or terminate customers running trojan > zombies, that spam would stop. Providers of those $30/month > accounts have made clear that they cannot afford to hire the > people to monitor and deal with their abusive customers. That > is why many of the providers of those $30/month accounts submit > their own IP address blocks to various "dynamic" backlists or > block port 25 themselves. > Do you have more information or references regarding your statements above? I'm interested in any studies etc. I would find TCP port 25 being blocked by my ISP to be unacceptable. It isn't the Internet anymore. The Internet's job is to shunt around IP packets, irrespective of what is in them. My anti-spam measures are so effective that I can't remember the last spam I received. I would find not be able to run my own MTA, unfortunately on a dynamically assigned IP ADSL service, as that is all I can afford, to be far more costly than the very negligable reduction in spam I would receive if TCP port 25 was blocked by ISPs. Regards, Mark. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf