RE: Lazy network operators

["Michel Py" <michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us>]

> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Ok so now you hit another problem, what you're saying is that
> the cablecos are running at such small margin that they are no
> longer in a position to implement policies like this and fix
> their smarthost systems? 

No. They design a small number of "packages" that intend to appeal to
the largest number of people. A typical package would include
connectivity, news, a small number of POP3 accounts, a home page, etc.
Purchasing a package does not imply using all the parts: I don't use my
ISP's NNTP for example. I can understand why they don't design a package
that would fit my needs, as I am not a typical user.

Bottom line is: part of what I pay for is a certain amount of bandwidth.
I don't know in the UK, but in California I don't think that any large
ISP would risk blocking port 25, the reason being they have no business
telling people how to use the bandwidth they purchase as long as it's
for a legitimate purpose.

If I was convinced that blocking 25 would solve the spam problem, I
would support it. I am not.

Michel.