Liontaur
Lets Get Boincing Already
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-06
join:2001-11-03
Salmon Arm, BC
clubs:   
| In regards to Telus's port blocking
Please folks, no more new threads, i'm going to lock all the current ones as they've run their course and are harder to keep track of. So please use this thread for the discussion, and keep it civilized.
I know many of the Telus users are pissed about the port blocking and I can understand and sympathize with that so that's why this thread will stay open unless it gets ugly.
Thanks for your understanding!
--
Join BroadbandReports.com's SETI@Home Team
Don't let your computer's idle time go to waste! |
|
Quentin
Xeno-Wolf
Premium
join:2001-09-12
AB, Canada
clubs:
| Thanks Liontaur   Hopefully this helps keep the topic a bit more under control.
And other users, Sorry for seeming rude in the past posts, I can see why some of you are getting angry with the Port Blocking issue.
Take Care,
Zac
--
~There is no Normal or Abnormal... Just Diversity.
I'm a Proud Telus User, with no complaints. |
|
TrenttheUncatchable
@telus.net
|  reply to Liontaur
Pardon me if this has already been asked before...I couldn't handle the endless rants...
So what can we do? Yes, I know we can "vote with our feet" but for the most part I'm happy with my service. I'm a pretty large consumer of Telus ADSL and to change would be in two words "Ugly and inefficient".
Question for a Telus Rep. Is there anyway you can offer either an "Opt out" list where we, the geek user can go and take responsibility for what's going on? Or can you offer an "in between" cost service that would allow us the freedom we are used to but the cost would be a discouragement for the inexperienced, thus cutting down on security issues.
I appreciate your effort to secure and protect your network, but for those of us who are experienced, I would love the freedom that we've had.
Thanks and return to your normal programming. |
|
nunchucka
join:2004-05-02
canada | reply to Liontaur
Re: In regards to Telus's port blocking
telus is great..i dont see why they dont block more ports.. wonderful isp. |
|
Glen T
join:2003-11-03
BC
| Liontaur, rants aside, I see this issue as remaining topical for as long as Telus continues to roll out the port blocking initiative, given that there still might be people who are waking up today to discover that their servers are no longer working.
Does anyone know if port blocking has been fully implemented? |
|
idic
join:2004-04-17
|  reply to Liontaur
First off I do work for TELUS. I am not happy about these changes at all. I am a complete geek and have purchased an internet CONNECTION from TELUS not an internet SERVICE. I have contacted TELUS as a customer and expressed these concerns. I was advised that ports were blocked for Virus protection. Now any geek knows that the ports that are being blocked ( minus port 25 ) have not been the ports used for virus infection. If TELUS the ISP wants to block these ports because it's in the "contract" fine but to block them with the baseless reasons they are using now ... well it needs to be challenged. I would recommend everyone not happy about this to contact TELUS ( @ helpdesk@telus.net ) and advise them that they are not happy.
I will be doing the 'unthinkable' and going to Shaw as my internet connection is that important to me. |
|
TrenttheUncatchable
@telus.net
|  My email word for word sent to helpdesk@telus.net "sans" personal info:
To whom it may concern,
This email is to request that you provide an option to "opt-out" of your present
port-blocking security update. I understand your reasoning for this and while I
feel it is appropriate for the vast majority of inexperienced users that you may
have on your system, I would like to see an option for those of us who are more
technically savvy and capable of defending our own computers without any help
from upstream. I am not making this request to facilitate the hosting of
servers contrary to your TOS, but rather so that I have the opportunity to have
unfettered access to the internet that I have enjoyed with Telus in the past.
Again, my request is for the opportunity to "opt-out" of your port blocking, to
the point that I would be willing to pay a one time fee of $10.00 for that
service. A second option, I would welcome is for Telus to resurrect the
opportunity for home users to obtain static IP address at a cost that is higher
than your standard ADSL package, but significantly less than your business ADSL packages with static IP's.
Finally, as a rather significant consumer of your ADSL service both at home and
at work where I have the final say as to who we use for our Internet provider, I
would hope to receive an appropriate response regarding this.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Hopefully this will help... |
|
eugened1
join:2004-06-28
Vancouver, BC | Mail sent!  |
|
rodst
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Victoria, BC
1 edit | reply to TrenttheUncatchable
Trent,
There is nothing to opt-in or opt-out of, Telus is enforcing their policy of not allowing servers. Their core base of customers aren't even aware of the changes that are taking place, and these customers could care less if they did know. A small group of people that are being affected by the port blocking are not going to affect a change in policy.
Now, only if Shaw would do the same thing. Here are the last 60 seconds of my log file:
2004/08/05 20:48:01 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:04 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:05 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:06 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:09 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:13 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:16 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:48:58 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
2004/08/05 20:49:01 Connection attempt to base station from WAN blocked -- src: dst:
--
RDS Computer Systems
Edit: For some reason, the IPs in my post got cut off, but they were all Shaw IPs. |
|
skippingrock
join:2004-07-26
Vancouver, BC
| rodst,
the thing you don't get is that I and many others are not complaining about the closed inbound ports. Don't run a server on my machine on a dynamic plan. Fine. I get that.
What I don't appreciate is that Telus is blocking the outbound use of other SMTP servers. Our organization has its own SMTP server that we host in the states. It uses authentication. Which everyone should from my point of view. But Telus' brain dead approach is to close it all, even the authenticated ones. So I use Telus'.
So when I go to another, non-Telus location, I get blocked again. Because Telus is too lazy to bother with authentication and I cannot use their servers from the outside. So what do I have to do? I have to go looking for an SMTP server that I can use. Sometimes I can use my organization's one again, but as you so like to point out... others should do this. That will mean that I am going to have to have this huge list of SMTP servers just to be able to send mail as I move around from location to location. Some places, well, I just won't be able to send mail at all... or gag me, use WebMail.
If they want to do this right, then they have to provide options if they want to keep us. Telus, set up your SMTP server to allow authentication and migrate everyone over to it. Educate your users. Next, allow access from the outside using the authentication. And finally either allow users to connect to other authenticated servers or bring back the static IP option for business and home accounts. The server plan is over-kill for what I want to be able to do... send e-mail without having to change my settings all the time.
Many of you may still be tethered by your desktop, but laptops are more popular than ever and we are not always in the same location, there has to be some realization of that.
The other thing to note is that the Internet was designed to be decentralized. It has and always will be up to the end user to secure their machine. If these ISPs think that they can start to close it up for the newbie's sake and turn this into something else.... [I could go on...]
Again, I understand their reason. I just think that their implementation sucks and does not provide the flexibility that is needed by a "not so small population" of their user base... who in many circumstances (such as myself) is actually creating the content that their general users are browsing. |
|
Big Daddy10
@businessobjects.com
| reply to Liontaur
I just spoke with Telus this morning.. They say it is for spam reasons, viruses etc.. Then he says well I can get the server package and then the ports are not blocked and I would get a static ip. Why is it that security is not a problem if you pay them more money? It is so not a virus issue. They need to be honest about it. |
|
TrenttheUncatchable
@telus.net
|  reply to skippingrock
My point exactly. As I stated in my email, I have no desire to violate Telus' TOS. I just feel that we the consumer of the service should be provided with an option with regards to these changes. I'd be happy to have Telus "scan" my IP for any open ports, I'm inclined to think that I'm at least as secure as the vast majority of their equipment.
I know what I'm doing. Really...
 |
|
wesleyw
join:2003-01-01
v5c1b
| reply to Liontaur
I just switched to 3web. They are right now basically just shaw. A shaw guy even came to install it, lol. However, they have no port blocking policy, no dl/ul restrictions, and most of all cost only $25 a month. I was happy with telus before, even though they had lower speeds. However, when they decide they should be in charge of what i can do with my own computers on my own internet connection, umm, I don't think so. I don't know how they expect people to stay with them when alternate isp's cost $10 less a month, for faster speeds and no restrictions. |
|
Glen T
join:2003-11-03
BC
| reply to skippingrock
*****
The server plan is over-kill for what I want to be able to do... send e-mail without having to change my settings all the time.
*****
Skippingrock, I hear what you are saying, but there is another solution. If all you need to do is send e-mail, then why not use the Telus Roaming Wizard and dialup?
I have a client who does this from all over the world. The Telus Roaming Wizard provides local or 1-800 numbers and handles the dialing. In some cases, there are flat-rate charges (which are quite reasonable).
My client runs everything at home and abroad without changing servers settings at all. |
|
signed up
@telus.net | reply to Liontaur
just signed up with 3web.
moved LD with them aswell.
moving the mobiles(2 of)to fido on monday.
voting with my money & feet.
|
|
edmtech
Premium
join:2004-07-27
Edmonton, AB
2 edits | reply to Liontaur
I truly can't wait until Shaw and other providers are forced by abuse to apply the same policy to their connections.
EDIT : The reason for block is the thousands of infected drones broadcasting on port 25 sending spam. While I agree that it could have been more elegant, it was probably one of the most necessary single ports to be filtering.
Authentication would be nice for sure. My 2 cents |
|
bad idea
@telus.net
| but for 2x the money the security can disappear and the drones can carry on. the only people hurt by this are non-spammers.
most for these spam machines are sitting on corp lines anyways.
i can only see this as a money grab. telus are in trouble i feel. |
|
edmtech
Premium
join:2004-07-27
Edmonton, AB
| reply to Liontaur
Have you seen the latest profit statment? No, most of the machines were not on corp lines, and the ones that are are NOT allowed to spam. If it is noticed or reported they are warned and subsequently cut off.
This is not a money grab, just a enforcment of security and the Terms of use. |
|
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
| reply to Big Daddy10
said by Big Daddy10:
I just spoke with Telus this morning.. They say it is for spam reasons, viruses etc.. Then he says well I can get the server package and then the ports are not blocked and I would get a static ip. Why is it that security is not a problem if you pay them more money? It is so not a virus issue. They need to be honest about it.
Because chances are if you pay that extra fee for a 'server' account, you know what you're doing... |
|
