[lug] SMTP delivery: No route to host

[Peter Hutnick]

j davis said:
> `
>>j davis said:
>>
>> > all this wineing from people who didnt even use email a few years
>> ago... now when they get a spam they go loopy...they dont diserve
>> your mothering.. when people realise the world does NOT OWE YOU
>> > anything...they will start to see....and your not helping
>>
>>You are looking at this the wrong way around.  This is NOT to prevent
>> users from getting SPAM (if it were everyone would have to admit that
>> it is an abysmal failure).  It is to prevent the ISP from being
>> /complicit/ in the /sending/ of SPAM.
>>
>>Whether it is right or wrong I will leave up to you; but if you are
>> going to condemn it, at least condemn it for what it actually is.
>>
>>-Peter
>
> um...sorry to inform you of this but blocking port 25
> is all about keeping users from getting spam...this tatic is
> a collective offensive move by ISPs on spamers for the result of
> *stopping the user from getting spam* :)
> uh...I dont know who you are refering to but
> I am quite clear on the subject at hand.

I don't work for an ISP (maybe Kirk will chime in again), but it is very
clear to me that ISPs block OUTGOING connections an 25 to prevent their
users from SENDING SPAM.  An argument can be made that this is, in an
abstract sense, and in the final analysis, to prevent "users", in some
global sense, from getting SPAM.  OTOH, it has no direct effect on the
ISP's users getting or not getting SPAM, and the immediate effect is quite
obvious; it prevents users from blasting SPAM _OUT_ via their ISP
connection.

To summarize, I don't think that ISPs block port 25 to part of the
solution, they do it to not be part of the problem.

Perhaps this is a difference without distinction from your point of view?

-Peter