[cobalt-users] RE: ISP's and Port 25 blocks

["Michael Aronoff" <ma@xxxxxxxx>]

Mike wrote:
>That's part of the main issue - one of our clients actually had to
>switch to another ISP because their prior ISP wouldn't allow them to
>relay through our servers because of the port 25 block. We have another
>client that needs to send large files via email (3-5Mb) because his
>clients are too dumb to figure out ftp - even with a browser - and his
>ISP won't allow file attachments larger than 2Mb....thus, he is now
>screwed because he can't use his domain's smtp capability.
>Personally, I don't see how an ISP can *legally* block access to
>someone else's equipment.
>I can understand the reasoning behind the port 25 blocks - ISP's
>draconian attempt to stop spam - but it is not a solution - apparently,
>though, it is a way for the ISP's to cover their backsides to ensure no
>one uses their network to send spam via another network - but it does
>not spam on the ISP's network.
>Perhaps a class action lawsuit is in order - understand my reasoning
>behind that suggestion - an ISP is blocking my clients' access to *my*
>equipment.

I understand your anger and frustration, however the ISP's NEED to be
doing this.  Otherwise there is nothing to stop any putz from using a
dial-up connection to send millions of pieces of mail.  Blocking port 25
prevents someone from using their own SMTP server from an ISP
connection.

That being said it is tough for clients too.  I use Portfwd (Search the
archives, this has been discussed) with port 999 set to forward all
traffic to port 25.  That way my clients set their mail clients to send
smtp over port 999 and then when it gets here to my server I move it
over to port 25.  It is a very elegant solution.  It does not open any
security or spam issues either.  POP-before-smtp still works so only
legit users can use our smtp server.

This has made many clients of mine very happy.

---------------
Michael Aronoff