> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Please stop this random speculating. The ISP that was blocked is not > my current ISP (I moved last fall), so none of this is relevant. So what ISP was blocked? Why do I suspect you are being disingenuous and that it was a $30/month account? > And > if I'm dealing with Hurricane now, well, that's the first I'd heard of > it, since I'm downstream on a hosted service and never bothered to > check who all my upstream providers are. As always, the buyer must beware. Adopting the terminology in draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-01.txt or similar would help. Hurricane Electric could say that its IP addresses may not be optimal for SMTP clients but are useful for SMTP, HTTP, and other servers. > Are you seriously asserting > that I deserve to be blocked if I don't confirm that all my upstream > ISP's are complying with J. Random Blacklist? That is a obviously an intentional distortion of my point. However, now that you "ask," then yes, you do "deserve" to have your mail blocked if you buy service from a provider with a reputation for being friendly to spammers. Your failure to exercise due diligence does not impose an obligation to accept more spam on others. You "deserve to be blocked" more than the rest of us "deserve" to receive the spam that helps support Hurricane Electric. > However, you are right that my current laptop configuration is one of > many that won't work when Caller-ID or SPF records come into use for > the domain guppylake.com. At that point, obviously, I will change my > laptop's configuration. My sincere hope is that by the time that > happens, I will have a better option for smtp submission. Blocking > port 25 will most assuredly *not* help that problem. On the contrary, Caller-ID and SPF would not stop as much spam without collateral damage as blocking port 25 from TimeWarner, Comcast, and other $30/month service providers. Caller-ID and SPF cannot have significant effects against spam for at least the 5-10 years before most domains support them. Caller-ID, SPF, and the rest would in effect block port 25 about the same IP addresses as simple port 25 blocking of $30/month accounts, in the unlikely event that Caller-ID etc. ever have any effects. If you would switch to SUBMIT, you would not care if your TimeWarner account is port 25 blocked, except that you might expect TimeWarner's prices to drop for needing even less abuse-desk staff. On the other hand, port 25 blocking can be done today and has immediate good effects against spam, as well as worms and viruses. Of course, port 25 is not a panacea for spam, worms, or viruses. Of course, some viruses and spammers would adopt the obvious countermeasure of using the ISP's servers, but many would not. Besides, the ISP is could filter or at least rate limit, and there are no easy countermeasures for spammers against that. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf