Webone blocking port 25??

[Chris Fletcher]

Blocking port 25 is stupid.

Any administrator with half a clue can protect their mail server from
relaying.

SMTP is an important function for Internet users - why should they be forced
to use a particular ISP's SMTP server.  Sure it may be more 'efficient', but
it may not be more secure.  There are plenty of other reasons why I may want
to use a particular mail server to send a message.  My company may insist on
it for security reasons etc.

If WeBone suddenly blocks port 25 without notice I would be on the phone to
the TIO (if I were a customer).

You should also be entitled to cancel your account without penalty if they
suddenly change the nature of the service they provide.

Not smart people.

Chris.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Elmes" <clug at repose.cx>
To: "CLUG" <linux at samba.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Webone blocking port 25??


> Alex Satrapa <grail at goldweb.com.au> writes:
>
> > On Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 11:50 , Damien Elmes wrote:
> >
> >> ... I don't think it's the ISP's responsibility to curb viruses, other
> >> than to provide free firewall / virus software to download.
> >
> > "For their next act, they'll no doubt be buying a firewall running under
NT,
> > which makes about as much sense as building a prison out of meringue."
> > -:Tanuki:, a.s.r
> >
> > If you run an ISP, and allow people with Windows to connect to your ISP,
the
> > very least you can do as a public service, is block port 25 outgoing.
This
> > protects you (the ISP) from being blacklisted, since your clients can no
> > longer send spam without going through your mail relay. Ideally, you'd
also
> > have spam filters on your mail relay (inbound and outbound). As a
side-effect,
> > blocking port 25 outgoing also protects your clients from exposing
important
> > documents thanks to virii like SirCam.
> >
> > Virus checking software only knows how to catch virii that have already
been
> > caught.
> >
> > Windows is not a secure platform, and anybody responsible for connecting
> > Windows boxes to the Internet is also responsible for protecting the
Internet
> > from them.
> >
> > Reasons I'd support "consumer grade" ISPs blocking port 25 outgoing and
> > requiring their customers use the mail relay would be that most
consumers use
> > Windows, and as such need someone else to take care of them.
> >
> > It's probably a stupid analogy but here goes: In "real life", there are
health
> > regulations that mandate the use of gloves and tongs when handling food.
> >
> > The reason restaurants are forced to behave this way is to protect the
large
> > number of people who could be hurt by them.
> >
> > Why shouldn't there be similar restrictions on people who connect poorly
> > administered machines to the Internet?
>
> That's all very well to be standing on your high horse, but when you're
locked
> into a plan with a dodgy ISP for a number of months, and their SMTP
servers
> are dodgy, I think you might feel differently.
>
> Non mainstream folks should not have to pay for business plans to get the
> functionality of the internet that has been available all along. It is of
> course within the rights of an ISP to block particular ports, but that
does
> not make it right. 12 month contracts and monopolies in particular sectors
make
> this issue particularly pertinent.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Damien Elmes
>