SMTP Relays...

[David V. Corbin]

>>> I think the ISPs are right to block outbound port 25, and I 
>>> hope they do more of it.  A high percentage of the spam 
>>> that's being blocked by my filters is coming from "dynamic" 
>>> connections (cable, dial-up, DSL) that make it harder to 
>>> trace and block on my side, and harder for the ISP to clamp 
>>> without affecting the next poor customer who gets that IP 
>>> address.  The fact that people have trouble configuring it 
>>> is a matter of education of the consumer and corrections of 
>>> shortcomings in the MUAs (not making use of vital 
>>> information in available protocols).  But in my mind, 
>>> blocking it is no worse an offense by the ISP than seat 
>>> belt laws, traffic lights, or control towers at airports.  
>>> And the ISP (or the corporation you work for,
>>> etc.) has a right to control its traffic, especially when 
>>> they are being made increasingly responsible for that 
>>> traffic by their peers.

I have to COMPLETELY disagree. An ISP that blocks OUTBOUND access to ANY
legal/conforming site or service is being overly restrictive. 

If I want to send spam mail I can and will [I DO NOT] by simply running a
WebService on my external site and talking to that from within the ISP
domain. Blocking outbound access provides NO benefit to ANYONE [except lazy
ignorant fools!]

It DOES prevent me from using ShadowMail [which runs on in conjunction with
my SMTP and POP3 accounts on my server(s) in Denver and allows review of all
inbound and outbound mail messages for a limited time from ANY (secure)
site]. It DOES prevent me from using MailAuthorizeIT [which utilizes the
originating IP and MAC of a message for authentication!]

It also makes it more difficult for me to service over 500 clients who have
Exchange Server Hosted on my Denver based servers. [Please NO blasting of MS
products in response to this thread <g>]