pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Ugh... 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 | |
|
 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Ugh... said by 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.
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. | |
|
 |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Ugh... said by Rob :
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 | |
|
| |
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Ugh... said by pnh102 :
said by Rob :
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. | |
|
| | | 
heels_fan
1.20.09 The start of Socialism
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Columbia, TN
| Re: Ugh... 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 | |
|
| | | |
| | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Ugh... 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. | |
|
| | | weedahoe
join:2003-09-14
Duluth, GA
1 edit | said by Rob :
said by pnh102 :
said by Rob :
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. | |
|
| | | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Ugh... 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 | |
|
| | | berniep3
join:2004-06-29
Boca Raton, FL
| 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! | |
|
| | | | weedahoe
join:2003-09-14
Duluth, GA | Re: Ugh... 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?? | |
|
| | fantomposter
Phantom Poster
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH
| said by pnh102 :
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. | |
|
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Ugh... said by fantomposter :
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 | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state | Re: Ugh... Comcast did do that for a short while, but stopped after complaints.
--
Forum Posts:4326 | |
|
| | | | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA | Re: Ugh... Verizon does that, it is pretty transparent though.
Still, something many do not know.... | |
|
| | | | | |
| | 
shans001
join:2000-08-13
Chesapeake, VA
·Cox HSI
| 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. | |
|
| | ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| said by pnh102 :
said by Rob :
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. | |
|
| |
| | Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
San Francisco, CA | Re: Ugh... 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 | |
|
| | |
|
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Ugh... Why should anyone provide SMTP at an alternate port, except to get around blocks such as this one? Port 25 is the standard. | |
|
| | |
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA
| 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. | |
|
| fantomposter
Phantom Poster
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH
| Re: Ugh... said by ParanoiaInc :
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  | |
|
|
|
|
·