I tried, I really did, but I just have to respond to this... Jonathan Tripathy wrote: > an ISP should *never* monitor for abuse in the EU, and should > *never* be made liable for what their customers do.
Correct - they should only be liable for abuse that they allow *their* networks to relay from *their* customers that affects innocent bystanders (the rest of us). > As I mentioned before, if they really feel that blocking port 25 blocks > spam, You aren't serious? It isn't a matter of 'feeling'. Blocking port 25 for residential users blocks TONS of SPAMBOTNETS. This isn't theory or guesswork, it is a simple fact. It also relievs a huge burden on the ISPs network (they no longer have to relay all that garbage). Sorry, but your position simply has no basis in reality. I tried, I really did, but I just have to respond to this... On 2010-07-21 4:55 PM, Ansgar Wiechers <li...@planetcobalt.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-21 Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote: >> ISP's should be made responsible and accountable for what their >> users do. > No, they shouldn't. >> They hold the rights to the IP Space in use at the time, and such >> any traffic that goes over it should be logged for later analysis >> by authorities if a user is found to be doing something illegal. > If you actually believe that, I suggest you move to China or > someplace. > Now. Agreed - this isn't about big-brother content control, its about pure and simple abusive behavior. If 99.999% of an ISPs customers don't want/need outbound port 25 capability, it is silly to leave it wide open - just open it for those that really need it, and then just make sure they don't abuse it.
