Re: Ugh... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r10170768 en Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:37:38 EDT Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:37:38 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10719071 fantomposter :
said by ParanoiaInc See Profile:
There shouldn't be a legit reason to be sending mail using your ISP's dmain mail server while not using your ISP's domain.


Large attachemnts. The IPS's are way behind the times on file size and limits. Other than that you are corrrect :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10719071 Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:16:15 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10716922 weedahoe : good luck with a class action suit because you agreed with the ToS when signing up for the service. you know, the part where you are to use your own exchange server, email server and things of the like??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10716922 Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:40:13 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10711202 berniep3 : the port 25 blocking is for all bellsouth customers but the ones interested in upgrading their services to business
it is only a money broblem hidden behind a security BS.
if you know any petition or class action law suit I will be glad to join!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10711202 Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:11:41 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175229 nixen :
said by Nightfall See Profile:
said by Rob See Profile:
said by pnh102 See Profile:
Its too bad the money to be made off of stupid users who refuse to secure their machines is more important to BellSouth than the responsible users who do secure their machines.


I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

I don't think that is totally correct.

According to my router logs, I get more spam and zombie attacks from a few other DSL and cable providers. Comcast IPs rank in the middle on my router attacks. The most, believe it or not, is Charter and SBC.

Well, lemme look at my (SMTP) logs. From the last four days:
    Relay access denied (total: 273960)
       14187   comcast.net
        6137   shawcable.net
        4942   attbi.com
        3881   greatosee.com
        3126   rr.com
 
    blocked using dynablock.njabl.org (total: 263297)
       46633   comcast.net
       12876   optonline.net
       12746   rr.com
       10236   attbi.com
        9189   ameritech.net

Not only is Comcast the biggest offender in two block categories, they are the biggest by a considerable margin. Comcast seriously needs to do something about their networks.

-tom



--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175229 Thu, 06 May 2004 23:41:36 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175018 ParanoiaInc :
said by pnh102 See Profile:
said by Rob See Profile:
I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

But at least Comcast isn't blocking port 25 (yet). I don't see why I should have my network connection hobbled because of idiots who refuse to secure their machines. I would fully support any ISP that yanks connectivity from lusers who refuse to use firewalls and/or patch their operating systems.

Which IS the problem! Until Comcast blocks port 25 to keep 'certain' customers from using Comcast SMTP servers for inappropriate activities, the problem will continue.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175018 Thu, 06 May 2004 23:16:30 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175008 ParanoiaInc : Mindspring was blocking port 25 back in 1996 when I worked for them. This is not new at all. There shouldn't be a legit reason to be sending mail using your ISP's dmain mail server while not using your ISP's domain.

And the problem isn't as simple as stupid users not securing their accounts/computers, but that Spammers signup for accounts and then use accounts elsewhere to relay through the unfortunate ISP's SMTP. This is an old trick that no mature ISP would allow the convenience of port 25 being open in the first place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10175008 Thu, 06 May 2004 23:15:15 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10174351 keyboard5684 : Verizon does that, it is pretty transparent though.

Still, something many do not know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10174351 Thu, 06 May 2004 22:07:47 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171641 shans001 : Cox in Virginia is blocking it too. I remember things breaking on me. Not only did I have outlook problems, my scripts for the linux servers stopped working. Usually, I have the server email me via a script when it is done doing something, like rsyncing. I wasn't too happy about it. After debugging, I went to the website and searched what they did. Pure B.S.

After this protection against spamming, has it worked? I steadily get more and more spam myself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171641 Thu, 06 May 2004 17:08:40 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171387 keyboard5684 : Not the same, and not really any re-programming.

It has now become standard for many ISPs that provide hosting to provide an alternative port for outbound mail. This is because of the port 25 blocks implemented by ISPs.

Blocking ports is not the way to go, for anything. Even the sasser worm, most ISPs blocked certain ports to prevent the spread. The true answer is to patch machines or cut off there service. Sooner or later those same users will be the ones to cause trouble else where. Leave them open and deal with the users. Send warnings and take action.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171387 Thu, 06 May 2004 16:41:51 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171326 KoolMoe : One reason I have SpeakEasy as my ISP is because they don't block ports nor have limitations against servers. If SE blocked port 25, killing my email server, I would look elsewhere. I don't think SE will do that, however, as such an open ToS is part of its attractiveness.
I would call SpeakEasy a fairly major ISP these days.

BUT I do agree that methods should be made to enable blocking ports on a per-subscriber basis. If I neglect my updates and security, I would have no problem with SE blocking port 25 for a few months if I were found to be a spam relay. In fact, I'd encourage it.

Keeping one's address book as a separate text file is a bit extreme. Myself, I use Mozilla for email and web browsing. So far, haven't had anything infect my machine, much less access and use my address book.
But I guess for some using Mozilla is just as extreme as keeping their address book as a separate text file ;-)
KM
--
War Propaganda
Re-Defeat Bush! No One Died When Clinton Lied]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171326 Thu, 06 May 2004 16:35:00 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171277 nixen :
said by russotto See Profile:
Why should anyone provide SMTP at an alternate port, except to get around blocks such as this one? Port 25 is the standard.

Port 25 is the MTA to MTA standard. However, RFC 2476, § 3.1 specifies port 587 as a standardized port for ESMTP based message submission.

-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171277 Thu, 06 May 2004 16:29:47 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171219 weedahoe :
said by Rob See Profile:
said by pnh102 See Profile:
said by Rob See Profile:
I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

But at least Comcast isn't blocking port 25 (yet). I don't see why I should have my network connection hobbled because of idiots who refuse to secure their machines. I would fully support any ISP that yanks connectivity from lusers who refuse to use firewalls and/or patch their operating systems.


I agree. But maybe if they started blocking port 25 the number of spam messages would go down.

BellSouth isn't blocking all users, only new users and those who upgrade.

Since BellSouth DSL is using PPPOE, and each customer has a "profile", I think it should be on a per customer basis. If a customer is found spamming, their account should get their port 25 blocked and after 6months to 1 year, have the block removed.

If all ISPS continue to block 25, then port 26 will become the new "stanard" port.


All customers are getting port 25 blocked, it doesnt matter if you are new or old, and there is no getting the block off, it is clearly for spamming and security issues, customers cant get a "business" account and get the port unblocked, it doesnt work that way, if you arent blocked yet then look for it coming, all major ISPs are headed in this direction.....and Im glad......im tired of all the people whining about spam and dont know why they get it. Keep your computer CLEAN and quit giving your address to every website and/or person you meet. Keep you address book in a text file so IF you get infected it cant use it. Get educated on what is out there and what you can get just by going to the wrong site or giving the wrong person/website your email address. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171219 Thu, 06 May 2004 16:25:04 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171121 russotto : Why should anyone provide SMTP at an alternate port, except to get around blocks such as this one? Port 25 is the standard.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10171121 Thu, 06 May 2004 16:12:35 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170768 en102 : If all ISPS continue to block 25, then port 26 will become the new "stanard" port.
--
I don't think that we will have to worry about something such as 'port 26' becoming a standard. This would require all email servers and programs to be rewritten, and implemented. That would be the equivalent of stating that web pages will now run on port 81 instead of 80, and electricity will now run at 50Hz, 220V instead on 60Hz 110V.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170768 Thu, 06 May 2004 15:32:48 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170335 N10Cities :
said by nixen See Profile:
said by pnh102 See Profile:
Next you'll hear of ISPs blocking port 80 to eliminate popup ads and spyware downloads.

Your ISP may already be "blocking" port 80 and you won't know it. Several ISPs do transparent proxying of web traffic. All traffic gets forwarded through HTTP caching systems. They do it to help eliminate redundant traffic from their networks and improve the overal browsing experience by speeding things up (at least static content).

-tom


My ISP has that as an optional service meant to benefit dialup users (speed up downloading graphics, etc). All you do is just point your browser to their proxy. Didn't really help with DSL....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170335 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:49:31 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170306 Qumahlin : Comcast did do that for a short while, but stopped after complaints.
--
Forum Posts:4326]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170306 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:46:03 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170218 nixen :
said by pnh102 See Profile:
Next you'll hear of ISPs blocking port 80 to eliminate popup ads and spyware downloads.

Your ISP may already be "blocking" port 80 and you won't know it. Several ISPs do transparent proxying of web traffic. All traffic gets forwarded through HTTP caching systems. They do it to help eliminate redundant traffic from their networks and improve the overal browsing experience by speeding things up (at least static content).

-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170218 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:35:53 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170199 heels_fan : Rob,
sooner or later they will be blocking all users. They started with the Dial-up accts and are slowly migrating to DSl. I had my port 25 block about 2 months before getting the new Extreme package. Eventually everybody will be blocked
--
To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill. -Sun Tzu]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170199 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:33:59 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170185 nixen : The only people that have need of port 25 outbound are ones who are running their own SMTP servers. The vast majority of providers prohibit the running of servers by their residential service consumers. So, to these providers, if their actions negatively impact your ability to violate your ToS agreement, it's only going to be viewed as a win.

For those of you that cry about this impacting your ability to use an SMTP hosting company's services (or even your employer's SMTP hosts) for relaying, that's a matter of implementation. Your SMTP service provider should be providing SMTP client service via an alternate port, any way. If they can't figure out how to do this, they really shouldn't be operating SMTP servers in the first place.

-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170185 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:32:07 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170108 Daemon : That's probably because you are on SBC and the attacks tend to come from sources closer to you (i.e. fewer hops)
--
-Ryan
Find me in the networking and Microsoft help forums]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10170108 Thu, 06 May 2004 14:21:32 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169793 pnh102 :
said by fantomposter See Profile:
They will, sooner or later. It is the cheapest way for them to fix the problem. No staff to investigate complaints...just lock it all down at the router.

You're correct... simply blocking the port is the easiest (but IMO the most aggravating) way to solve the problem. What bothers me though is that when the next major Internet annoyance comes along, they will just block the port for that too, and so on and so forth, until the whole damn connection is useless.

Next you'll hear of ISPs blocking port 80 to eliminate popup ads and spyware downloads.
--
Keep America Strong! Bush/Cheney 2004]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169793 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:43:11 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169676 fantomposter :
said by pnh102 See Profile:

But at least Comcast isn't blocking port 25 (yet).


They will, sooner or later. It is the cheapest way for them to fix the problem. No staff to investigate complaints...just lock it all down at the router.

What would be cool is if they and other providers set it up so that users that want port 25 (for example) could request it. Perhaps make it another class of service and include a static IP.

Since, 90 percent (guess) of people dont need or want it the problem is solved and both sides win.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169676 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:28:36 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169664 Rob :
said by pnh102 See Profile:
said by Rob See Profile:
I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

But at least Comcast isn't blocking port 25 (yet). I don't see why I should have my network connection hobbled because of idiots who refuse to secure their machines. I would fully support any ISP that yanks connectivity from lusers who refuse to use firewalls and/or patch their operating systems.


I agree. But maybe if they started blocking port 25 the number of spam messages would go down.

BellSouth isn't blocking all users, only new users and those who upgrade.

Since BellSouth DSL is using PPPOE, and each customer has a "profile", I think it should be on a per customer basis. If a customer is found spamming, their account should get their port 25 blocked and after 6months to 1 year, have the block removed.

If all ISPS continue to block 25, then port 26 will become the new "stanard" port.
--
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169664 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:27:23 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169617 Nightfall :
said by Rob See Profile:
said by pnh102 See Profile:
Its too bad the money to be made off of stupid users who refuse to secure their machines is more important to BellSouth than the responsible users who do secure their machines.


I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

I don't think that is totally correct.

According to my router logs, I get more spam and zombie attacks from a few other DSL and cable providers. Comcast IPs rank in the middle on my router attacks. The most, believe it or not, is Charter and SBC.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169617 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:21:46 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169607 pnh102 :
said by Rob See Profile:
I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.

But at least Comcast isn't blocking port 25 (yet). I don't see why I should have my network connection hobbled because of idiots who refuse to secure their machines. I would fully support any ISP that yanks connectivity from lusers who refuse to use firewalls and/or patch their operating systems.
--
Keep America Strong! Bush/Cheney 2004]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169607 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:21:02 EDT Re: Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169569 Rob :
said by pnh102 See Profile:
Its too bad the money to be made off of stupid users who refuse to secure their machines is more important to BellSouth than the responsible users who do secure their machines.


I don't see Comcast making any improvements to help lower the number of spammers on their network -- making them the #1 ISP with the most spam users.
--
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169569 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:15:40 EDT Ugh... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169508 pnh102 : Its too bad the money to be made off of stupid users who refuse to secure their machines is more important to BellSouth than the responsible users who do secure their machines.
--
Keep America Strong! Bush/Cheney 2004]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10169508 Thu, 06 May 2004 13:08:54 EDT