[lug] SMTP delivery: No route to host

[Justin-lists]

Ok, I think you took my reply the wrong way. I did not know ISP's had this policy, I was not trying to complain even though it may have come off that way. I posted this thread as a problem I was trying to troubleshoot and in the end I found out the cause. I don't "hate" this cause, I am glad I found out because now I can work around it easily. I totally understand why ISP's do this and I agree that it's a good idea. I do not mind sending my mail through their smtp server in the least bit. I just wish I would have known that this was the case because it would have saved much time and hassle. I know that spam is a pain in the ass, I only have around 90 users on my system but my server still gets is share. 

I was not aware that running your own mail server was the "geek" thing to do these days either. I've been running it for a just a couple years. Not because I want to be a cool geek running all my own stuff, but because it's fun to me. I guess the desire to learn and enjoyment of admin'ing systems is not a good enough reason to run your own mail server anymore?

At any rate, my current issue is resolved. Thx for the help and infos.

Justin

--
glow at jackmoves.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Kirk Rafferty <kirk at fpcc.net>
To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
Sent: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:20:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [lug] SMTP delivery: No route to host

> I know that many technical people *hate* this policy, where an ISP
> blocks all outbound SMTP traffic except to their mailserver. 
>  However, as the owner of a local ISP, let me tell you why this is 
> currently a good idea. (I say currently, because spam is going away 
> someday, right? Right..?)
> 
> ISPs are coming under heavier and heavier fire regarding spam.  It is
> at epedemic proportions.  Over 1/2 of my daily email is spam, and I think
> I read somewhere that spam accounts for almost 20% of email traffic 
> on the internet now.
> 
> This is one of the things that's being done about it.  Over 99% of my
> customer base (and I imagine most ISPs) have absolutely no reason to 
> be sending email through somebody else's SMTP server.  For the under 
> 1% of my customers who have a legitimate need, I make provisions to 
> allow them to relay through their work server, or wherever.  (in 
> fact, if someone is clueful enough to make the request, and provide 
> the IP addresses they need to relay through, I almost always just 
> add the access rule.) But for the vast majority of users, they don't 
> even want to know what an SMTP server is.  They just want to send 
> and receive email.  It just makes sense to close down SMTP when over 
> 99% of your customers aren't affected.
> (especially when you're willing to make concessions for the other < 
> 1%.) We (as users) complain about it, but we also get less spam 
> because of it. Most spam is still sent through dialup networks.  I 
> imagine if all the major dialup networks adopted SMTP port blocking, 
> spam volume would plummet. (./~ ...You might saaaaay I'm a 
> dreamer... ./~)
> 
> I know it's the "geek" thing to do, to run your own mailserver and make
> your own damn connections.  But even amongst the geek crowd, very few
> of us have a legitimate need to do so.  It would be nice if we could,
>  but in this case, the benefits of the many really do outweigh those 
> of the few.
> 
> If you're tired of spam, you'll realize that this is a good thing.
> And if you *really* want to send email directly to your email server 
> at work, and your ISP won't let you through, just set up an SMTP 
> server at work to listen on port 80 or 23 or something, and relay 
> out that port. :)
> 
> -k
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug
------- End of Original Message -------