[lug] SMTP delivery: No route to host

[Kirk Rafferty]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:19:17AM -0700, Peter Hutnick wrote:
> 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.

Bingo.

The real problem is that the spam issue is almost as complicated as peace
in the middle east.  There are many many spam insertion points, complacent
governments, clueless users, clueless admins, clueless courts, vigillante
users, vigillante admins, differing agendas, different policies, even
different ideas of what spam is.  And that's just here in the US.  Add
to that the issues of every other local state, province, canton, and
territory in every other country in the world.

I accept the fact that blocking SMTP is not a "solution" to the problem.
But neither is the spam filter you're probably running on your server
or client.  Neither are the RBLs, the access lists, and the multitude of
other band-aids that weren't necessary just a few years ago. But until the 
internet community gets fed up enough with spam to *really* do something
about it, this is an effective "band-aid" against the tide of spam.  Only
social change will remove the need for band-aids.

Hey, this is as vocal as I've been on this list in years. :)  I hope
everyone has a great, spam-free Thanksgiving holiday.

(oh, and hi back, Peter!)

-k