nanog mailing list archives
Re: ingress SMTP
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:11:55 +0530
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Justin Scott <jscott () gravityfree com> wrote:
What is preventing this from being an operational no-brainer, including making a few exceptions for customers that prove they know how to lock down their own mail infrastructure?As a small player who operates a mail server used by many local businesses, this becomes a support issue for admins in our position. We operate an SMTP
Do you operate your mailserver on a residential cablemodem or adsl rather than a business account? There's this little matter of a "no servers on home connections" type AUP that most providers have .. --srs
Current thread:
- Re: ingress SMTP, (continued)
- Re: ingress SMTP Bill Stewart (Sep 12)
- Re: ingress SMTP Mark Foster (Sep 12)
- Re: ingress SMTP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Sep 12)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 13)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Alec Berry (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Stephen Sprunk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Simon Waters (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Justin Scott (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Daniel Senie (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Chris Boyd (Sep 03)
- Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Michael Thomas (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? Charles Wyble (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)