techn0mad
Premium
join:2002-01-10
Sammamish, WA
| reply to jester121
Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer
said by jester121  :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
I'll be curious to see how SPF manages to cause headaches, assuming it ever gets widespread acceptance. If companies don't adopt the alternate port approach, they're going to have a ton of extra work.
I can't speak to the validity of this solution, but I have to point out that there are folks like myself who do not have any alternatives for broadband except Comcast.
I like to think of myself as competent enough to run my own SMTP server without causing more spam and problems for my ISP. My beef is that Comcast does not provide an account that supports me running my own SMTP server at any price. So telling people to pay up isn't the answer either.
--
Larry Gadallah, VE6VQ gadallahl@yahoo.com Key fingerprint = D679 5D9D 4127 7403 68FD D7F3 8668 EBA5 |
|
netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now?
Well you seem to be so insitent on how they can spend it. Why can't I be insitent on how you spend yours? |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to netscape 6
Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now? |
|
netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
How about you pony up the money for them. I mean it's so easy for you spending other peoples money. I figure you should'nt mind me spending yours. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
It is not only those who want to run their own server who want to use a SMTP Server other than that of the ISP that is AT THAT TIME providing their connectivity. It is anyone who has a laptop who does not want to have to alter all their MUA settings every time they connect via a different ISP's network. Yes I know about using Port587 to bypass the "Control Freak" blocking of Port 25 but that relies on the 'foreign" ISP supporting this port. I have seen ISPs that block outgoing Port25 (You must use OUR Servers or Port 587 to get to THEIR Server) who then will not allow Port25 OR PORT587 connects to their Internet facing Servers. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to russotto
said by russotto :
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments.
What is a first-class internet account? I didn't know there were classifications for that, but I'll bite.
The workarounds depend on having a server admin who knows WTF they're doing, who can set up alternate ports for SMTP. Barring that, pay a few bucks a month for a hosting service that will let you send through them.
If you're referring to being prevented from running a server at home as a workaround, then you're way off base -- subscribers who want to run their own servers are already USING a workaround, because they don't want to use Comcast's servers or they like to tinker. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to DonLibes
Your employer can (and should) set up an alternate port for you to use, preferably with SMTP-Auth, and you'll have no problems.
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
I'll be curious to see how SPF manages to cause headaches, assuming it ever gets widespread acceptance. If companies don't adopt the alternate port approach, they're going to have a ton of extra work. |
|
