Discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 31

[Derek Martin]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:07:01PM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
> >> Quite honestly, I'm a lot more bothered by these "reasonable" limits
> >> on traffic volume and general no-server (ftp, web) policies than I am
> >> by blocking of port 25 outbound.
> >
> > What's the difference?  You need the port unblocked to run a mail
> > server...
> 
> No, you don't.  Not outbound port 25, anyway.  Unless I'm imagining it, my
> messages are coming through just fine from a server within the RCN network.
> You can contact my server directly via *inbound* port 25, and outbound I
> communicate with you via RCN's mail server.

Well, then you're not really running your own mail server; i.e. you're
dependent on someone else's mail server for your service ON YOUR END
to work.  The whole point of our argument is that this should not be
necessary.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20041125/ee4a87a9/attachment.sig>