[e2e] Fwd: Camel's nose in the tent

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>

> ...
> The policy is implemented at Verizon merely on mail sent through their SMTP 
> servers (however, since most SMTP servers block "relay" access as defined 
> by messages coming in from IP addresses other than ones they "control", 
> this limits a user's options).  I am informed by Brad Templeton that other 
> ISPs block traffic to SMTP port on servers other than their own.  Similarly 
> justified by anti-spam arguments.
> ...

Ok, that's what I'd heard elsehwere.
But "similarly"?  Is Verizon among the IP-address slumlords that block
port 25?

I'm as rabid as anyone in my opposition to any sort of filtering by ISPs
of IP packets not to or from hosts run by the ISPs, such as UUnet's
supposedly anti-spam port 25 filtering, AT&T's nominally anti-CodeRed port
80 filtering, and AOL's indescribable port 25 interception proxies.
However, it is important to not slide into arguing that third parties
can force host owners to do anything.  Verizon has a perfect right to do
anything with its own hosts, no matter how silly or wrong-headed.

The common judgement of Verizon's recent change is that it shows that
Verizon is unclear on the concept of SMTP relaying especially concernin
spam.  Maybe what Verizion is doing is more subtle than what the common
"buzz" says it is, but I can't see how requiring a valid and local
envelope or header From value spam sent by Verizon's hosts is likely
to affect much spam.


Vernon Schryver    vjs at rhyolite.com