Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda) Cc: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer), brian@Awfulhak.org (Brian Somers), chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups Message-ID: <199909261743.KAA10098@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261017060.367-100000@localhost> from Alex Zepeda at "Sep 26, 1999 10:22:45 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[CC redirected from -current to -chat, users left intact] > On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Gary Palmer wrote: > > > No, actually, there is absolutely nothing which says that you, as a > > subscriber of good standing, *have* to be allowed to connect to > > non-local port 25. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the ISP > > require that you buy a static IP (with N months initially prepaid) or > > something to get port 25 privs. > > Why?! The only ISP I've used at all that blocked port 25 was AT&T. And that list has grown, and is growing on a daily basis. Every ISP that brings me in under contract to clean up their spam problem now implements the block 25 policy. This is becoming a default way of life. AT&T was one of the first big boys to do it, others are following rapid suite due to the situations outlined elsewhere. > I think it's perfectly unreasonable. Luckily for me, the only PBI server > that's been down for any serious amount of time (as far as I could tell) > was the POP3 server farm. > > But back with GST/Wenet/Hooked, their OGM servers did go down and were > slow enough to make me not want to use them. Even on the rare occasion > when they did work (all two of them; and now one), I liked having the > extra control over my mail. Now.. well I use PBI's "smarthost" merely > because hub won't accept anything else. Get use to that fact, your going to find this policy more and more. > > If you want to go after the real source of the problem, then lobby > > your local government to make spammers pay for the damage they do. > > Otherwise the `freedom' of the old Internet will be worn away because > > ISPs will have to protect themselves more and more. > > No, the real problem is the ISPs who can't fund decent servers and provide > decent service. If they could take care of spam and provide a 99% > reliable service, I'd have very few problems with using their mailservers. Now, that is one thing we _have_ done that the other ISP's don't seem to be so keen on. But then, we have an advantage in that we also happen to run some very large opt-in bulk email services for our clients, and that means we need to have very good, very fast, _and_ 99.9% reliability on our email servers. (We are working towards the 99.99, but it gets really hard to get that last 0.09% with a protocol that was not designed for fault tolerance). We do have SLA's that we must meet for certain customers that not only says we wont loose the mail, we also must deliver it within a certain time period. We have taken the knowledge we learned from doing the bulk mail and applied partitions of it to our standard smarthost. Also if those ISP's are not providing the ``descent servers and .. decent service'' they are not really ISP's are they, they are simply ``IP's''. :-). We aim to serve, not just to provide. No :-) -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909261743.KAA10098>