kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
1 edit | reply to sonofjay
Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer
What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone. This way it won't affect the majority of subscribers. After all, there are probably more people out there who legitimately use 3rd party SMTP servers, which would be negatively affected by such a block than there are spamming zombies.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. |
|
DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| said by kpatz  :
What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone.
How does Comcast's proposed implementation only target subscribers sending out spam? I need to use my employer's SMTP server (Comcast's SMTP server has too many limits on outbound mail plus it's much lower reliability, has long latency, etc.) So would I still be able to use my employer's SMTP server? How would Comcast differentiate? |
|
kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| said by DonLibes :
How does Comcast's proposed implementation only target subscribers sending out spam? I need to use my employer's SMTP server (Comcast's SMTP server has too many limits on outbound mail plus it's much lower reliability, has long latency, etc.) So would I still be able to use my employer's SMTP server? How would Comcast differentiate?
I presume they would go by Spamhaus etc. reports and/or abuse complaints, and just block those who are known to have sent large amounts of spam.
Sending legitimate mail to a legitimate 3rd-party server shouldn't get their attention.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs: | reply to DonLibes
 Why don't you use VPN and solve your problem |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to DonLibes
Your employer can (and should) set up an alternate port for you to use, preferably with SMTP-Auth, and you'll have no problems.
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
I'll be curious to see how SPF manages to cause headaches, assuming it ever gets widespread acceptance. If companies don't adopt the alternate port approach, they're going to have a ton of extra work. |
|
N10Cities
SILENCE I Keel You
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Roland, OK
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·World Lynx
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes :
said by kpatz :
What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone.
How does Comcast's proposed implementation only target subscribers sending out spam? I need to use my employer's SMTP server (Comcast's SMTP server has too many limits on outbound mail plus it's much lower reliability, has long latency, etc.) So would I still be able to use my employer's SMTP server? How would Comcast differentiate?
There was an article somewhere (I can't remember the link, but it was on C-NET), that said they can go into the customer's modem and block the port there once a known spam machine is identified. |
|
Brazbit
Randomness Personified
Premium
join:2003-10-22
Port Orchard, WA
·wavebroadband
| reply to kpatz
said by kpatz :
What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone. This way it won't affect the majority of subscribers. After all, there are probably more people out there who legitimately use 3rd party SMTP servers, which would be negatively affected by such a block than there are spamming zombies.
Didn't they say that in the last lines of the BBR article?
"With a "targeted" approach, Comcast likely plans to block port 25/tcp traffic for only the most egregious offenders. We'll soon see if that's going to be enough." |
|
kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| said by Brazbit :
Didn't they say that in the last lines of the BBR article?
Not when it was first posted, unless I overlooked it.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| said by russotto :
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments.
What is a first-class internet account? I didn't know there were classifications for that, but I'll bite.
The workarounds depend on having a server admin who knows WTF they're doing, who can set up alternate ports for SMTP. Barring that, pay a few bucks a month for a hosting service that will let you send through them.
If you're referring to being prevented from running a server at home as a workaround, then you're way off base -- subscribers who want to run their own servers are already USING a workaround, because they don't want to use Comcast's servers or they like to tinker. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
It is not only those who want to run their own server who want to use a SMTP Server other than that of the ISP that is AT THAT TIME providing their connectivity. It is anyone who has a laptop who does not want to have to alter all their MUA settings every time they connect via a different ISP's network. Yes I know about using Port587 to bypass the "Control Freak" blocking of Port 25 but that relies on the 'foreign" ISP supporting this port. I have seen ISPs that block outgoing Port25 (You must use OUR Servers or Port 587 to get to THEIR Server) who then will not allow Port25 OR PORT587 connects to their Internet facing Servers. |
|
netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
How about you pony up the money for them. I mean it's so easy for you spending other peoples money. I figure you should'nt mind me spending yours. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now? |
|
netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| said by jester121 :
Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now?
Well you seem to be so insitent on how they can spend it. Why can't I be insitent on how you spend yours? |
|
techn0mad
Premium
join:2002-01-10
Sammamish, WA
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
I'll be curious to see how SPF manages to cause headaches, assuming it ever gets widespread acceptance. If companies don't adopt the alternate port approach, they're going to have a ton of extra work.
I can't speak to the validity of this solution, but I have to point out that there are folks like myself who do not have any alternatives for broadband except Comcast.
I like to think of myself as competent enough to run my own SMTP server without causing more spam and problems for my ISP. My beef is that Comcast does not provide an account that supports me running my own SMTP server at any price. So telling people to pay up isn't the answer either.
--
Larry Gadallah, VE6VQ gadallahl@yahoo.com Key fingerprint = D679 5D9D 4127 7403 68FD D7F3 8668 EBA5 |
|
