[145883] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Tue Oct 25 16:15:31 2011
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:14:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <fc0d6d88-128a-455e-9c70-76957ffd6220@email.android.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Tue Oct 25 14:53:32 2011
> Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
> From: Alex Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:52:46 +0100
> To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>
> Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Works perfectly even in networks where a VPN doesn't and the idiot
> >hotel
> >intercepts port 25 (not blocks, redirects to *their* server.)
> >
> >--Ricky
>
> Why do they do that?
Because some "quarter-asswit"[1] sold them that it was a good idea -- maybe
on the basis tht it was: "easy" to to rate-limit -- supposedly an anti-spam
measure; "easy" to 'forward' all the patron traffic to a relay server of the
hotel's choice, so that, -if- it is spam, the outside world sees it coming
from an already segregated address-space; "easy" to implement a holding
queue, so that if they _do_ detect spam, they can drop _all_ the spam
messages, even those sent before the spam threshold was detected.; etc.,
etc., ad nauseum.
[1] "half-assed half-wit", reduced to a single term.
