|
All Archives /
aussie-isp /
2006-03
|
<<< Date >>> | |
| Permanent Link | ||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:57:41 +1100
From: Brendan O'Dea To: Aussie ISP List Message-Id: <20060330135741.GA8407@londo.c47.org> In-Reply-To: <442B324A.20800@cia.com.au> References: <01a601c652e0$90e1b1e0$2a5e0fcb@tnet.com.au> <442B324A.20800@cia.com.au> Subject: Re: [Oz-ISP] Spam code? |
Followups: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0603310609520.975-100000@home.albury.net.au> |
|
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 12:20:10PM +1100, Marc-Adrian Napoli wrote: > >http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/spam-code-a-worlds-first/2006/03/28/1143441140324.html > >Is everyone serious about implementing these changes? It's not entirely daft. While I don't believe that ISPs should be responsible for the inbound SPAM received by their customers, taking steps to reduce outbound SPAM is reasonable: "Under the new code, ISPs will have to [...] provide a system of handling complaints." If this means providing a working a b u s e @ d o m a i n then it's merely re-enforcing RFC 2142. "They will also have to impose reasonable limits on the rate at which subscribers can send email." This is similarly reasonable. Given that 99.9% of home users should legitimately only be sending mail: a) via the ISPs mail servers, and b) would send on average dozens (at most hundreds) of messages per day, surely it makes sense to make the default policy for those users match those assumptions: limiting port 25 outbound to just your mail servers, and implementing outbound quotas on your mail servers. The average customer won't notice these restrictions at all, and it reduces the amount of SPAM proxied through those customer PCs which are infected by viruses considerably. For that 0.1% of customers for which this is a problem, ensure that you provide an opt-out facility. --bod ---- email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to m a j o r d o m o @ a u s s i e . n e t to be removed. |
|