republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!
(old news - 11:48PM Tuesday Oct 03 2000)
Earthlink has decided to clamp down on outgoing spam. This means subscribers will no longer be able to initiate a port 25 connection to any server other than Earthlink mail servers.
• You can still use web-based email
• You can no longer use POP "fetch then send" email accounts without reconfiguring to send via EarthLink (who will evidently monitor for spam or for volume).
• (if you are a spam artist) You can no longer find open mail relays, in the far east for example, and spam the net.
It will be interesting to see if their spam-detectors will throttle or kill home-based mailing-list work.

Text from Earthlink follows:

We wanted to alert you to a new EarthLink policy that should benefit all members but may require you to change one of your email software settings. As you may know, one of the biggest inconveniences to all Internet users is unwanted junk email, or "spam." That's why we have made our Spaminator service available to all members free of charge. But in order to combat the serious, ongoing problem of spam, EarthLink is instituting a new policy called "Port 25 blocking."
WHAT IS PORT 25 BLOCKING?
Port 25 blocking will stop spammers from sending out huge waves of unauthorized junk email by preventing EarthLink email from being sent out through any non-EarthLink mail servers. With Port 25 blocking, anyone logged in to an EarthLink access number will only be able to send mail through the EarthLink mail servers, thereby allowing us to block spam sent out through our network.
DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING?
If you only use EarthLink to send your email, you won't have to do anything new and can stop reading this alert now. Unfortunately, there could be an inconvenience associated with this new policy if you have a second, non-EarthLink email account.
SECONDARY EMAIL ACCOUNTS
EarthLink will begin Port 25 blocking within the next couple of months. Once this policy is fully in place, any EarthLink member who has a secondary email account that is not an EarthLink account or a Web Mail account, will no longer be able to send email using that secondary account's outgoing (SMTP) mail servers. You will still be able to receive email normally through these accounts, but in order to send email, we need you to make a change for us. (You will also still be able to send and receive email from any Web-based mail system, such as HotMail, without making any changes to your Web settings.)
EMAIL SOFTWARE SETTINGS
In your email software, please change your outgoing (SMTP) mail server for all secondary accounts to the EarthLink mail server: mail.earthlink.net. This will have no impact on how your sent mail appears or on the ability of people to reply to you at your secondary email account. It simply allows EarthLink to ensure that spam is not being sent out through our network of access numbers. Again, in order to use your secondary email accounts normally, as soon as you can, please change all outgoing (SMTP) servers to: mail.earthlink.net.

Forums » Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

buddyfrench

join:2000-07-17
Brandon, MS
clubs:

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

This is bad? I hate junkmail ! I wear a Brightmail.com cap! I am tired of doing whois and e-mailing abuse@XXXXXX. I am tired of having to view and forward all headers !

justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

No, its good. Well I think so anyway.

kkb
An individual right

join:2000-06-11
Montrose, CO

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

I disagree. There are valid instances where mass-mailing should be permitted. Your very own Line Monitoring emailed reports would be forbidden if you used MindSpring's mail system. Also, there are private email systems external to MS/EL some folks use that require SMTP password authentication - these systems will not accept MS relays due to the password requirement and the user is hosed 'cause direct access to the mail server is blocked.

I could agree to say a 30 to 90 day probation period for MS/EL to weed out abusers at which time a person could petition to have the restriction lifted from their account.
Brian D

join:2000-02-26
Camp Hill, PA

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

Just curious, if it blocked on port 25, could'nt I reconfigure my co-located server to listen for SMTP on a different port number? And then connect to that port number from my sytem here at home?

bil2k

join:2000-08-19
Pompano Beach, FL

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

yep

graysonf
Premium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Sure, then you could connect on another port from home. But how does your coloacated server, now running on a non-standard port, exchange mail with the rest of the world who is still listening on port 25?

djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

Using a firewall, you could forward the nonstandard port to 25 so the server effectively listens on both ports....

-- Rob

mdntblu

join:1999-09-30
Corona, CA
yeah you can have it listen on a different port and also even configure it to listen on multiple ports.

djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME

If you were an Earthlink customer, you could still send out the Line Monitoring reports via Earthlink servers. You are right that private SMTP servers would need to be reconfigured, but that's somewhat unusual, most people get to their "private" e-mail accounts via VPN, which the port blocking would not affect.

I do agree that some notice would have been a good idea to protect those few who might be using outgoing SMTP connections respectably. As much as I dislike port blocking in general, I do think the good outweighs the bad in this situation.

Bubba Joe

@uswest.net

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

This is excellent.

Anyone can still have email delivered to their external domain, i.e. joe@otherdomain.com

All you do is set up your email program for Earthlink to say Joe@otherdomain.com as the reply address instead of Joe@earthlink.com

This is NO problem for anyone at all. In the grand scheme of life! It does, however, punish those losers who spam people because they can't get a real job. The harassment will start to slowly end as other ISPs will follow. Remember, Earthlink is #2 (a distant #2) after AOL.

Good MOVE!

RBB

@swbell.ne

I agree--AT&T WorldNet's port-25 policy is just as you describe: The port is initially blocked, but after 30 days (enough time for you to have to start paying for the service) you can call tech support and have the block removed. I used it all the time to send/receive mail through Yahoo! Mail (since WorldNet's own SMTP server is behind a firewall, so you can't use it while connected to another ISP). I guess I'll have to look and see if my new SWBell DSL line has a port-25 block...

jrousseau
Fudge E. Bear

join:2000-08-08
Houston, TX
What, are you kidding? I can make money fast, and there are lonely college girls waiting to hear from me! How am I supposed to find out about it now?!

--
I am the Lizard King...I can do anything!

wesm
Wyvern.Org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Saskatoon, SK
clubs:

This makes me glad I'm not an Earthlink subscriber ... One thing I notice Earthlink cheerfully skipped over, and no one has mentioned here yet, is that some people run their own mail servers. If my ISP did this (which would be a violation by them of their own terms of service), that would mean my own, properly secured, mail relay would no longer function.

Its not an ISPs job to harass everyone due to the actions of the few. Give me the service I pay for and run the abusers off the network. If that means I need to pay a bit more to finance the salaries of the people who do that, then wonderful, I'm all for it.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy and have the root password.

justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY

Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

Well if they only block smtp outgoing, as they imply, then your own mail server would still work for incoming mail. And if you want to use it for outgoing mail, you just have to reconfig it to point to the earthlink mail server which is a very easy change.

And quite possibly if you want to email 10,000 people, you warn them and them exempt the spam trap for you.

Of course this also means they have to be in the loop on what you do with your connection. And they might decide mailing 10,000 people (for whatever reason) is not something that is allowed on your line.
Anon

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

I used to use Global Crossing for my dialup provider, but after they made the move to PRServ.net (which is an AT&T/IBM ICO group), they were blocking Port 25.. But moreso they didn't give me access to any MX server (stupid screwup). GC used to use UUNet, same provider as Earthlink uses here.

Ok first off I couldn't send mail through GC's MX's.. Then I could finally. But I couldn't use my domain.. Why would I use Frontiernet.net email? I could change providers at anytime, just because of stupid things like this.

Earthlink WILL route my @Maine.rr.com email... They dont' say 'no relaying'. As long as that's the case, I don't mind, as much anyway..

I run my own MX's for a reason.. It's too bad I won't be able to get at them.

Duely noted that 1-Link.net blocks 25, and they use UUNet too.

graysonf
Premium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Earthlink/Mindspring does not allow any type of servers to be run from residential DSL or dialup accounts. It's in their AUP, so the fact that servers aren't allowed shouldn't be news to any of their impacted customers.

The difference now is that rather than merely prohibiting mail servers (and connections to off domain servers) via AUP, they are insuring the prohibition by technical means.

While this is new to Earthlink, Mindspring has been doing it for quite some time. I suppose the recent merger of the two has allowed some of the Mindspring mindset to migrate to the company that gobbled Mindspring up.

Look for similar announcements soon in other Earthlink owned former Mindspring aquisitions, if they haven't already been made - places like Netcom - if they even still have an identity of their own.

And yes, there are ISPs that do cater to those who wish to run servers. I shopped around to find the service and policies I need to operate the way I want to. There's no reason any of the impacted Earthlink customers can't vote with their feet and wallets. It may cost them more, but in my case it didn't.

I can get garbage DSL service from numerous ISPs with draconian AUPs, or excellent and accomodating service for the same price - to the penny.

Xearthlinkuser

@205.186.x.x

I can't use any of my 3 SMPT servers from my earthlink dial up, we now use MSN.

I would ask Sky Davis if I can peek at HIS personal email address or if the tech on the support line will give me their home phone numbers so I might have better access to them for support issues....
borahood

join:2000-07-18
Davis, CA

This is GREAT news! It means I may consider taking earthlink off my "black hole" list here at work.

I got tired of daily "abuse@" mailings to them, so as acting postmaster, I simply added them to the access denied list, and shut them off entirely in sendmail. For the entire enterprise. Nobody complained, not a SINGLE person complained that legitimate mail was being blocked.

Now if we can just convince msn.com to do the same...

jseymour8

join:2000-07-29

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!


It means I may consider taking earthlink off my "black hole" list here at work.


Yup. I've had Earthlink manually black-holed for years. I recently added a single email address to an exception list that let that one Earthlink address in. Now maybe I can take them off the black-list.


Now if we can just convince msn.com to do the same...


You may be amused (I was) to find that MSN recently found itself on the MAPS RBL (I believe it was). I only noticed because I get a daily summary of mail gateway activity from each gateway, and observed that there was a reject (multiple rejects? Don't remember) from the MSN domain. Reject reason was, IIRC, for being on the MAPS RBL.
Anon

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

Earthlink does not seem to be responding to requests for clarification on whether or not they will block their DSL customers (nearly all are on PPPoE).

There is a growing discussion on these issues in the Earthlink news groups earthlink.complaint, earthlink.tech-support.dsl, and earthlink.tech-support.mail.

Earthlink support has been VERY quiet on this issue. Calls to support asking for clarification or exceptions have not helped clarify things or gain exceptions.

I need access to my corporate SMTP for reasons of speed and security. Earthlink has not been much help.

It'll make a good trade press article or two.
jhouck

join:2000-09-25
Albuquerque, NM
Doesn't this also mean that in the future, whenever Earthlink's servers crash, we'll be SOL if we want to send any mail? Not that THAT would ever happen.
scooper

join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC

What's the big deal here ? I got this in my email (as an Earthlink customer), did some checking on their website to read the particulars, verified with some other fellow geeks about what it meant and what I should put in sendmail.cf, and went on my way. I am in favor of ANYTHING that will reduce spam. I have mail rules in my Windows email client to seperate it. As a residential customer, it's going to mean diddly squat to some 95%+ of their customers - it's what they put in their clients anyway !!! If you are a business, you are probably doing something better anyway !!

jseymour8

join:2000-07-29

ISPs blocking the SMTP port outgoing is probably a necessary evil. For dialups.

A few thoughts...

    •I would assume Earthlink's new policy applies only to dialup connections.
    •I can't imagine any ISP doing this to business customers using dedicated (i.e.: xDSL, Frame, T1 or other digital) connections.
    •If one needs to send direct-to-MX for some reason, IMO one should get a business account of some type. At least an account with static IP. But even dynamic IP customers are probably not email abuse sources (much). It's "throw-away" dialup accounts that are the big problem with direct-to-MX and relay-rape spamming.
    •I find it somewhat odd that none of the other tech. news sites I visit yet have any news on this. Nor has anything appeared about it in news.admin.net-abuse.email.

wesm
Wyvern.Org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Saskatoon, SK
clubs:

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

If one needs to send direct-to-MX for some reason, IMO one should get a business account of some type.

And why should businesses, or those who can afford the expense of a business account, get standard Internet connectivity, while home users are punished by having TCP/IP ports filtered and blocked? If I pay an ISP for a connection to the Internet, that's what I want, and nothing should interfere with that. Same as my driving on the local toll road: my Taurus gets the same treatment as the business-driven limousine in the other lane.

Degrading your whole network due to the actions of some is a lame tactic, and they know it. The phone company doesn't disconnect an entire town just because a few idiots start making harassing phone calls to neighbouring towns.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy and have the root password.

jseymour8

join:2000-07-29

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!


And why should businesses, or those who can afford the expense of a business account, get standard Internet connectivity, while home users are punished by having TCP/IP ports filtered and blocked?


You read my statement wrong. Perhaps because I was insufficiently clear in the way I wrote it. (Tho I would have thought the bit about "dynamic IP xDSL customers" would have served to make the point.) Put another way: IME, people who wish to do direct-to-MX would be better served by obtaining a business account of some sort. At least an account with a static IP.

As to why I say that: dialup accounts are particularly ill-suited for direct-to-MX delivery for two reasons:

    •The dialup netblock will likely be listed on the MAPS DUL database. Many SMTP servers (mine at home and those I admin at work included) will not accept SMTP connections from machines with IP addresses in the DUL database.
    •Mail server admins are increasing requiring that SMTP client hosts have a valid and self-consistent rDNS entry. Unlikely in the extreme with a dialup account. (I don't do this check on any of my mail servers - yet.)


So you see: Earthlink's action only completes the job that many mail server admins had already started individually. (Not to mention: apparently enforces the TOS that everybody was supposed to be obeying anyway.)

If it'll make you feel better, I'll re-direct my outgoing through my ISP's mail gateway. It makes no-never-mind to me. I do direct-to-MX because I can, not because there's some Holy Advantage or great Geek Power Points gained thereby. It was incoming SMTP connections over which I wanted control--the reason I wanted to run a mail server. Why did I want to run my own mail server? To control incoming spam. Ironic, in light of the discussion, no?

wesm
Wyvern.Org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Saskatoon, SK
clubs:

Re: Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!

If it'll make you feel better, I'll re-direct my outgoing through my ISP's mail gateway. It makes no-never-mind to me. I do direct-to-MX because I can, not because there's some Holy Advantage or great Geek Power Points gained thereby. It was incoming SMTP connections over which I wanted control--the reason I wanted to run a mail server. Why did I want to run my own mail server? To control incoming spam. Ironic, in light of the discussion, no?

My apologies, I wasn't intending to get on your case. I run my own mail server for the same reason. Basically, two things miffed me here, and I'm sorry for it getting the better of me:

1- That Earthlink sees the need to start filtering what, by all rights, should be an unfiltered line (TOS notwithstanding, which I realize prohibits servers anyway, but Direct-to-MX and other technical reasons mean, to me, it should be left open. Kick the abusers off)

2- That "get a businss connection" seems to be the standard response by a lot of ISPs and users, whenever someone complains they're not getting something that's been "standard" with Internet connections since the beginning of the 'net (i.e. a static IP, or the ability to connect to your home machine from work, etc; those things, for me, being the primary reason why I wanted DSL, not just the speed)
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy and have the root password.

JSY

join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
clubs:


edited
I'm not sure how I feel about this. There are situations where I need to use port 25 using SMTP to send e-mail out through another mail server, and it looks like this would prevent it. I run a website out there, and in order to send outgoing mail with the proper domain name origin, I need to use a different mail server. I could use the "Reply-to" field, but that wouldn't look very professional.

Now, how this mail server attempts to get around spamming is that it uses the POP3 authentication before allowing mail to be sent. (It verifies the password used for POP3 and then opens the SMTP port for a specified amount of time before closing.) I think if more mail servers had this SMTP authentication process, perhaps instances like what Earthlink had to do wouldn't have to be a common practice. Also, maybe this would be useful in the war against spam. It's a small nuisance (of checking for authentication), but I think it's a better solution than to restrict ports because mail servers out there have their SMTP port wide open, or than to have the SMTP port open only from traffic originating from it's own domain.

[text was edited by author 2000-10-04 17:05:51]

jseymour8

join:2000-07-29

Re: Not sure how I exactly feel about this. . .


I run a website out there, and in order to send outgoing mail with the proper domain name origin, I need to use a different mail server.


Unless Earthlink's MTAs are messing with the inside (or "header") "From:" line, this is not true. They shouldn't be doing that. I would be mildly surprised to find they were.

It so-happens that the MTAs I admin are configured to show all email coming from from "somebody@example.com." (As opposed to including the originating hostname.) But they're all corporate or private mail gateways. For an ISP-provided mail gateway: this should not be the case.

Yes, the "Received:" headers will show the transit through Earthlink's MTAs. Is there a problem with that? Is Earthlink not a respectable ISP? Should one be embarrassed that somebody should notice they're using Earthlink?

Before I got my SOHO-business-class DSL circuit at home, incoming email was delivered to my machine via an Internet-to-UUCP mail gateway. Outgoing was directed through my dialup ISP's SMTP server. Never was there a problem with who the email was "from." After my DSL line was in, but before I got around to moving my domain over, I simply switched the relay host parameter to my new DSL provider's specified mail gateway. I made no other changes in my MTA's configuration. Nobody not looking at the "Received:" headers would have ever noticed the difference. In fact, even though I'm now doing direct-to-MX: still nobody not looking at the headers would see the difference.

Heck, if Earthlink would let me relay through them, I could do so and still nobody would notice anything different if they didn't look at the "Received:" headers.

Why do you suppose forged spam headers are so effective?

There is no good reason that I can think of that anybody running a small, residential system cannot relay through their ISP's mail gateway.

The only reason a business of any size does direct-to-MX is that there's no point to doing otherwise when you have a domain with proper DNS and rDNS records. And there's no point to adding your traffic to an ISP's mail gateway in such a case. My dedicated commercial ISPs don't even mention such a thing as a "mail gateway."

As I noted elsewhere: I do direct-to-MX from my home system now simply because I can. So there's one less "hop?" <shrug> Whoop-de-doo. It just ain't no big thayng.

JSY

join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
clubs:

Re: Not sure how I exactly feel about this. . .

Actually, I am not a customer of Earthlink - I was speaking about any ISP.

From what I've experienced, there are a lot of MTAs (with no authentication) that require you to have your actual e-mail address in the "from" field. Those MTAs that allow you to put whatever you want in the "from" field will indeed show whatever you inputed on the e-mail - as you mentioned. However, a look at the headers for any of these e-mails not only show you the MTA that is being used, but also the originating domain (which usually matches the MTA's), the originating IP, and the originating user-ID. At least, the MTAs of ISPs that I deal and dealt with all disclose that information. That's just not acceptable for my use. It has nothing to do with the reputation of the ISP.

What makes anonymity important in my case is that the website that I am in charge of is for someone in the performing arts that is somewhat in high visibility - and using another MTA rather than the ones that are supplied by our ISPs afford us the privacy that is needed. The headers here show the originating IP as that of the website, and only the website itself. It ensures us that there is no trail back to our personal ISPs.

As the older MTAs (those that don't compare IPs to the hostnames in the headers) start fading out (if they already haven't), I think obviously forged spam headers will be less and less effective - but the fact that we can identify that they exist illustrates that more and more people do look at them. It's not hard to look up the headers, and I am positive that all those who have come through the halls of DSLR know how to read them (albeit we are a different crowd) - especially in the day and age of checking the headers to track down spammers.

Now, you might not find my use of the other mail server as a good reason, but I feel it indeed is a very good one at that.

croshare

join:2000-09-18
Medford, NY

here are a few good reasons for them to block port 25. This only about 25% of the earthlink address I've blocked on my mail client.
sherry56@earthlink.net
skippy56@earthlink.net
airhead19@earthlink.com
sarah8797240@earthlink.net
danny445@earthlink.net
sully78@earthlink.net
viaspecialists48613@earthlink.net
casey45@earthlink.net
loans4u2@earthlink.net
kenny55@earthlink.net
cid23@earthlink.net
chad56@earthlink.net
harris55@earthlink.net
dave44@earthlink.net
97610@ shelby66@earthlink.net
rich55@earthlink.net
viagra3@earthlink.net
lawson56@earthlink.net
debts@earthlink.net
and.ac.uk loans@earthlink.net
RloF23zbM@earthlink.net

I'm sure half of these don't even come from Earthlinks network. But I bet they still have to hear about the complaints.

crimson_tech

@home.com


But then again, all they need to do is sign up with a Free ISP... and that's just an EASY solution... anyone determined enough to send spam is going to send it, even if they switch ISP's...I suppose the only thing they would gain is less spam originating from the earthlink.net domain.

TheJimmy

join:2000-07-20
Villa Rica, GA
For all the years of people crying about spam, you would think this move would be applauded. I guess you just never know....

Big_Daddy

@64.208.x.x

What if your entire business is designed, built and ran off of spamming, should you force a company to go out of business, just because you don’t want there mail? Its not American to tell someone they cant make money, whether its Illegal or not, we deserve to make money and no one should be able to stop us

MHX

join:2000-05-24
Los Angeles, CA

Earthlink once again shows it is even worse than Verizon. I'm glad I dumped Earthlink for the lesser evil.

VZ tries to make me use myname@gte.net as a return address if I use their outbound mail servers, so I just use the mail server provided by my domain host, and I can be me@mydomain.com. EL won't allow me to do that. I can also use the fetch-then-send facility of my employer's account. Again, no joy through EL

My advice is for EL subscribers to dump them and go to a local mom and pop type ISP.
Anon It seems as if all you have to do is change the outgoing mail server, and everything works normal. It seems as if you can still use the email that is not Earthlink. Help me out here.
Chuck

blarg---

@voyager.net

Re: I don't get what/where the problem is...

you cant use a different outgoing server, they blocked port 25 and made it so you can only use mail.earthlink.net for the outgoing server. if you put anything else in for outgoing server, it will say that the server cant be found.

MHX

join:2000-05-24
Los Angeles, CA

They haven't started doing it yet

Once they do, you won't be able to use an outside mail server any more. According to the letter, above, they will phase it in over the next few months.

uhuh

@mindspring.n

Re: They haven't started doing it yet

So if you just change your outgoing mail server to mail.earthlink.net instead of your domain or whatever other mail server you are using for all of your accounts, and make your reply address @whatverdomainyouwant.com what exactly will prevent you from sending mail? Did you know most LARGE ISP have been using a port 25 block for sometime?
bmarkw71

join:2000-12-10
Los Angeles, CA

I use other POP mail servers on a daily basis, mainly to protect myself from spam, and to protect my privacy. If Earthlink removes the part of my internet access, then me and my DSL will go elsewhere. It's as simple as that. I've been with earthlink for 4 years, but removing the open access to the internet that they've provided is not acceptable. What ports I access is my business, not Earthlink's. Afterall, I signed up for, and am paying for everything I can reach via TCP/IP. End of story.
benboy4

join:2000-12-19
Silver Spring, MD

Re: block port 25? You must be kidding!

It seems as if you are under the belief that the POP mail you are attempting to connect to will be blocked. Well you are wrong. POP mail is obtained via port 110 (which is not being blocked). If you would re-read the notice from earthlink (instead of jumping to conclusions), they are only asking you to use their mail server as the outgoing mail server (not your incoming mail server). You can therefore collect POP mail (or IMAP) anywhere on the Internet.

Earthlink's problem is that spammers can easily sign up for one of their dialup accounts and then blast the world with their spam via a mail server outside of Earthlink's network (which the spammer connects to via port 25). Unfortunatly there are many mail servers in the world that are not set up to stop illegal mail relaying. Earthlink is taking the responsible approach by saying if you use earthlink's access and want to send mail, send it through us - we are not going to let you connect to a mail server outside of our network. I think this is great because any spam attempts through their network can easily be identified and killed off.

In short, nothing is being removed from you (unless you are a spammer).
bmarkw71

join:2000-12-10
Los Angeles, CA

Re: block port 25? You must be kidding!

I think you misunderstand:

I use non-earthlink POP mail servers that are accessed via port 25, for legimate reasons on a daily basis to send email that I do not want appearing to origonate from Earthlink. I use the POP servers to send legtimate messages, that I do not want to be associated with Earthlink, when-someone views the complete text of the header in the e-mail.

I also run my own mail server for outbound e-mail, often to email large files to work, so that I don't have to go through an earthlink server. (ArGoSoft shareware!! -- truly an excellent and stable mail server for Win98)

I pay earthlink for a tcp/ip connection to the internet. It's not their job to police my access to someone else's computer, or filter what ports I am using, or worse to filter packets!!. It's the owner of the "other computer's" job. If I wanted to be "protected" from the big bad internet, Or I felt the big bad internet needed to be protected from me, I'd be using AOL

How would you feel if Earthlink said the were going to start filtering packets that address port 23 on the remote system? Using the rhe same arguement, they could say that "people use Telnet to hack into other computers and servers", so we're phasing in a block on port 23. (This is an obviously extreme example of the slippery slope they may be are heading down.) [If you're a newbie: Telnet is the normal way to access a unix system to run a remote command line session]

Does this make more sense now?


aitech
Guru. Kneel

join:2000-12-19
Boston, MA
clubs:

Yeah, this is a Crock!

We also use our DSL account to maintain SMTP servers, test SMTP servers in development, etc etc. And to connect to our intra-office SMTP server at our other locations. This is a major PAIN.

I think the KEY word in the announcement here is **MONITOR**, which this makes it MUCH easier for them to monitor any e-mail sent out. Where it's going, who it from, etc etc..

A smarter and less intrusive approach would be to simply watch port 25 bandwith/connects, etc. For example a spammer (which should go to hell anyway) would connect to an e-mail server and send out 1,000's of e-mails. Simply log this "excessive" outgoing bandwith, then have someone glance over it to confirm spamming activity or not. If not, leave it alone, if so, close the acct, etc.

Simpler solutions than this..

Oh well...
--
1536/384 Covad. 1380/360 actual. 20-60ms pings. Great!!
Was a BITCH to install 60+ days and 100+ incompetent moron's along the way, but it's GREAT and SOLID now..

tuvix

@shawcable.net

Port 25 blocking has become necessary due to too many idiot spammers and people violating AUP's.

Don't like Earthlink? Here's a clue, move to another ISP!

Secondly, and once again, regular use of email won't be affected. For those people with anti-spam boxes... you might wanna check with Steve Gibson since he's managed to reveal that Earthlink isn't all that privacy minded anyways!

Thirdly, running your own mail server without paying for a commercial DSL/Cable/Hi-Speed connection is typically in violation of the ISP's AUP. Running just about any type of server will violate 98% of the AUP's out there for standard consumer/home based hi-speed and dialup connections.

My theory is, it's not a violation if you're not caught but that's another story :P

This is what happens when spammers abuse services. Run, don't walk, to your nearest spammer and use the biggest gun you have!

happy

Re: only a problem for spammers

I'm happy to hear this implicit promise that
Earthlink is moving away from being a notorious
spammer home.
spe1996

join:2001-01-10
Chagrin Falls, OH

I dumped eathlink for just this reason....I had my DSL thought EL for almost 7, The whole reason that I got DSL was so that I could transfer large files from work to home via e-mail...Not only does EL block port 25 they limit the size of out going mail thought there smtp server to 6 mb. This would not be a problem for Dial up users but DSL does me little good if I cant e-mail my finished projects back to work!!!
bmarkw71

join:2000-12-10
Los Angeles, CA


edited
After a long discussion, with a very professional tech support person, regarding the matter of my legtimate use of communicating to a remote server's port 25, the end result of the conversation was basically: If you don't have a problem today, you won't have a problem in the near future. (the details go much deeper)

I won't comment any further, as I don't want to encourage spammers, but the short of it is that Earthlink is being fair and reasonable in the matter, and as best I can tell, not infringing on the privacy of users who understand how the internet works, and those that understand relationships between clients and servers.

Congrads, to them -- as usual.

Bye for now!
[text was edited by author 2001-07-06 01:21:11]

astralw

@telocity.com

Uhm...Spammers will simply set up mail servers on a different, non-priviledged port (ports above 1024). Blocking USERS access to port 25 outside of their domain will just be a denial of service for users. I run a linux system, I don't NEED the ISP's mail server to send mail, my system connects DIRECTLY to the recipient's mail host - which will be blocked by earthlink (Home of Spammers & Clammers!)

Not only that, but there are times when I need to telnet to a mail server's port for diagnostic reasons.

I'm sorry, but their solution is useless, and stupid.
If they REALLY want to nail spammers, put something in their AUP that charges a penalty fee of say, $500 per spam sent, on the lamer's credit card. They can claim it's for maintainence and cleanup from the spammers :P

IsaacD

@216.104.x.x

Do you really think that spammers use a dialup account to send out millions of emails?? They are using spam friendly servers and spoofing ip addresses like earthlink's so that the abuse emails get sent to earthlink. You could no more spam a high volume of people on a dialup than pedal your way to the moon.

What this is doing is allowing earthlink to gather information (by their own admission) on your email habits. Who you send to, the frequency will all be tracked under the guise of safety. And don't think that they will not be able to read your email. Any traffic that goes through their server is fair game for them to read. As long as you have the right access, you can read anything coming through. They will soon have a hell of a database built up that they should be able to squeeze all sorts of information from. Don't be surprised when they start selling it to marketing folks. The very same ones they are "protecting" you from.

If you are paying for a tcp/ip connection then you should have free access from port 0-65535.. Glad I don't have earthlink. Also, they are not blocking POP servers, only SMTP. There is a difference.

Glad they admitted they are spammers.
Isaac

Adrin

@mindspring.com

I have used mindspring for years. I recently set up an email server at my home. It took me some time to get sendmail running right. But once I added the correct info in smart host I was set. The email has a from Address of my mail server and I can get email directly to my mail server. So no problem.

I also have an outside business email account. I followed their directions and the from field has myname@mycompany.com again no problem.

What I have not tested yet. Is that if I am going through their server does it limit my email to 5Megs?

Rich Mintz

@mindspring.com

I ran into this problem today for the first time -- Earthlink's SMTP server was not behaving properly (it was hanging on outgoing messages > 1K), and I needed to find an alternative. I have access to several outside SMTP servers (and control one of them), but couldn't use them via port 25. Fortunately, someone told me that many SMTP servers also listen by default on port 587 (consistent with the message submission protocol, RFC 1476). My own outside server does so, it turns out, and I didn't even know it!

See also here: »https://panel.dreamhost.com/kbase/index.···rea=1623

kaula2

@cox.net
this is fake, i work for earthlink and we do not block any email ports. also mail.earthlink.net for outgoing port?? yeah right, we been trying to switch over to smtpauth.earthlink.net for years now...
Forums » Earthlink blocks port 25 outgoing!


Friday, 05-Sep 02:26:40 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9 years online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com.