NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast limits on outbound e-mail traffic?
> At 02:32 PM 11/12/2007, Jay Sulzberger wrote: > >If the company disallows email connections directly to and from > >the box in your house, then this is a violation of Net > >Neutrality, unless the the company explains that what you get is > >not a Net connection, but something else. On 11/12/07, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote: > Not true at all. In fact, one of our upstream providers REQUIRES > that we block outgoing SMTP from any host on our network which is > not a mail server. And it's very much helped us and our users to > do so. We're able to catch and disinfect systems which have been > infected by crimeware and have become "spambots" and "zombies." > We have also prevented our own networks from being added to DNS > blacklists. All of those facts make a good case for choosing to block outbound port 25. Should you choose to do that, then your network is less "neutral" than one that doesn't block outbound port 25. Many smart people advocate the proactive blocking of outbound port 25 by the ISP. Some ISPs block outbound port 25 reactively. Some ISPs allow individual users to request a lift of this block. Neutral: no. Reasonable: probably. Recommended: maybe, especially for Brett's lariat.net since an upstream requires it. IMHO, it comes down to this: The more an ISP (or other intermediary) interferes with end-to-end connectivity between peers on the Internet, the less neutral it is. Good reasons and disclosures do not change that fact. However, they do help consumers accept the reasonable actions taken by the ISP. > Oh, and by the way, I'm sure that the "every bit is sacred" crowd > will also frown upon the use of such blacklists. But the fact is > that no ISP can provide e-mail service without them.... No frown here. I think that the use of blacklists for email is moot to NN. E-mail is a value-added service of an Internet Service Provider, IMHO. Singcerely and Hummmmbly, Robb Topolski