Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >> Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less spam >> hitting our networks? > > It's been extremely effective in blocking spam sent by spambots on > large ISPs. It's not a magic anti-spam bullet. (If you know one, > please let us know.) > That simply hasn't been my experience. I still get lots of spam from booted hosts in large provider networks, and yes, that includes many that block 25. As near as I can tell, 25 blocking is not affecting spammers at all, just legitimate users. There was a time when it was effective, but the spammers have long since adapted. Now we are only breaking the Internet. We are no ,onger accomplishing anything ireful. It's pure momentum. >> workaround. Since, like many of us, I use a lot of transient networks, >> having to reconfigure for each unique set of brokenness is actually wasting >> more of my time than the spam this brokenness was alleged to prevent. > > Is there some reason you aren't able to configure your computers to use > tunnels or SUBMIT? They seem to work pretty well for other people. > Many of the transient networks I deal with block 22, 25, 465, and 587. They also often block protocols 41 and 43 or do not provide a public address, rendering those protocols unusable anyway. Yes, I am now running ssh and s,tp processes on ports 80 and 443 to get around this, but, that consumes an extra address for something that should be handled by a port number. Personally, i'd rather use port numbers for l4 uniqueness rather than IP Addresses. Owen > R's, > John
