[146044] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Mon Oct 31 23:20:55 2011
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:19:59 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4EAE26F3.8060401@dcrocker.net>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "<nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog@nanog.org>
Cc: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net] said on Sunday, 30 October, 201=
1 22:41
> On 10/30/2011 8:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>> So you support filtering end-user outbound SMTP sessions as this is =
a
>> means to prevent misuse of the Commons*. Correct?
> If it is acceptable to have the receiving SMTP server at one end of a
> connection do filtering -- and it is -- then why wouldn't it be accep=
table to have
> filtering done at the source end of that SMTP connection?
> As soon as we step upstream this way, stepping up earlier still is me=
rely
> a question of efficacy and efficiency.
Actually, if it is my network I have the absolute right to control what=
comes in and what goes out. If I am a commercial entity and my paying=
customers like this, then I will make lots of money. If they don't, I=
will go out of business. Thus for self-interest and survival end-user=
-networks do not restrict outbound excessively but block inbound with v=
arious policies that strike a balance between paying customers going el=
sewhere and paying customers leaving for less controlled environments, =
while still making a profit and staying in business.
Hence, we end up with the situation that we have. It won't change with=
out either (a) every operator deciding to do the same thing for their o=
wn collective best interest (such as blocking outbound TCP/25); or, (b)=
external fascist forces.
And the bit-movers really don't care, since all they do is move bits...=
and more bits means more money.
