 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | its about time It's about time most ISP's start blocking the ports.
There's way too much spam out there being relayed. I think that those that 'need' port 25, can purchase a business style account, or use a form of webmail. | |
|  | 
cowboy
So Much For Subtlety
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Morgan Hill, CA
 ·Covad Communications
·DSL EXTREME
|  Re: its about time
I've yet to see one of these guys do this the right way:
*) Open the submission port(587) and require auth+TLS on it
...This port *MUST* be accessible outside the ISP net !
*) Require authentication on intranet submission via port 25
*) Do *NOT* require the ISP domain name on the Envelope From:, it could be valid to require it on the header.
Now, the have accurate accounting of who sent what, *AND* the user can sendmail via the ISP from wherever they are.
If all the ISPs and companies did this, *THEN* it is valid to block port 25 outbound, and possibly inbound. *THEN* it becomes feasible to impliment SPF/domainkeys/etc... But *NOT* before, because things are flatly B0RKED.
Without doing this properly, the ISP are screwing with telecomuters, tech folk, etc...
For example, I regulary sendmail from whatever box I'm on (work, home, laptop during travel) from any one of at least six different domains ! Yes, I use my ISP as a smarthost at times, but at times I can't.
I couldn't even use my prior ISP (Bellsouth) outside of their netblocks... and won't use my current (DSLExtreme) outside until they impliment SSL and port 587. Wanna take bets on if my company allows external mail?... How about the volunteer work I do with a Linux distribution ?
The only saving grace for me, is that my ISP allowed me to opt out of the port 25 block (in exchange for scanning, which I'm cool with - no open proxies) - so in a pinch I can always bounce mail through my home box to wherever I need it to go (via STARTTLS/AUTH on port 587, of course).
For the poor folk who have an ISP that requires certain domain names on their From: lines, even this is not an option 
--
Richard Nelson | |
| | | macmouse
Premium
join:2002-05-30
Saratoga, CA
| Re: its about time Well, if you already have a *nix box at home, you can foreword the port via SSH.
Its not perfect (requires manual intervention) but it works quite well in a pinch.
ssh me@my.linux.box -L 2525:mail.isp.net:25 (smtp)
ssh me@my.linux.box -L 1110:mail.isp.net:110 (pop)
Then, you point your email client to connect to localhost (on the high number port # defined).
BTW - I'm also pretty sure there is openssh in the cygwin package for windows, so you can use that or some other "native" ssh client. | |
| | | |
cowboy
So Much For Subtlety
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Morgan Hill, CA | Re: its about time hehe, btdt, I now use OpenVPN on Linux and windows - works great !
--
Richard Nelson | |
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Without doing this properly, the ISP are screwing with telecomuters, tech folk, etc...
For example, I regulary sendmail from whatever box I'm on (work, home, laptop during travel) from any one of at least six different domains ! Yes, I use my ISP as a smarthost at times, but at times I can't.
This is just another reason to have
A) A Business account, which would not restrict these ports (vs. standard!), and could allow you to run servers if you want
B) Web based email.
C) VPN to your email / business
The only saving grace for me, is that my ISP allowed me to opt out of the port 25 block (in exchange for scanning, which I'm cool with - no open proxies) - so in a pinch I can always bounce mail through my home box to wherever I need it to go (via STARTTLS/AUTH on port 587, of course).
I agree that ISPs could offer to allow port 25 in exchange for scanning. I have SBC, which requires authentication for sending email as well as recieving, and I for one do not mind. On a daily basis at work, my domains see between 2000 and 5000 spam messages a day, and those are the ones that don't get rejected due to fake domains, etc. It's a waste of bandwidth and resources. I agree that this will not stop everything, as spam is big business. | |
| | | |
cowboy
So Much For Subtlety
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Morgan Hill, CA
·Covad Communications
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: its about time This is just another reason to have
A) A Business account, which would not restrict these ports (vs. standard!), and could allow you to run servers if you want
B) Web based email.
C) VPN to your email / business
No... you're missing the point...
*) I am not a business
*) I have personal web based mail, as does my ISP, my company and groups I do volunteer work for DO NOT !
*) Some of the groups I volunteer for DO NOT have VPNs setup
*) I have a VPN to work - unfortunately it is Windows only - there is a hack to do similiar on Linux, but it is *NOT* supported - and often broken.
If your answer is for me to become a business - upgrade my phone and DSL (usually both have to be done) to work around poorly planned and implimented filters by ISPs - and lack of decent company support.... then too much of your income comes from the ISP/telco side.
I agree that ISPs could offer to allow port 25 in exchange for scanning. I have SBC, which requires authentication for sending email as well as recieving, and I for one do not mind.
Good for them ! Do they also allow authenticated sending from outside their network ?
On a daily basis at work, my domains see between 2000 and 5000 spam messages a day, and those are the ones that don't get rejected due to fake domains, etc. It's a waste of bandwidth and resources. I agree that this will not stop everything, as spam is big business.
Right... so after filtering, we'll suffer through SPF, DomainKeys, etc... and each will fail to stop the problem Remember, spam isn't SPFs selling point - it is forged senders... but all these break in subtle ways with forwarding, and/or have other issues.
And unfortunately, a some of that money winds up in the ISPs pockets... Thats why netblocks (or the threats of same) used to be resorted to...
--
Richard Nelson | |
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: its about time No... you're missing the point...
*) I am not a business
*) I have personal web based mail, as does my ISP, my company and groups I do volunteer work for DO NOT !
*) Some of the groups I volunteer for DO NOT have VPNs setup
*) I have a VPN to work - unfortunately it is Windows only - there is a hack to do similiar on Linux, but it is *NOT* supported - and often broken.
A) Get your company to get up to date, with either web based access or VPN based access. If they require you to access remotely, then they should be providing a reasonable/secure access method.
If your answer is for me to become a business - upgrade my phone and DSL (usually both have to be done) to work around poorly planned and implimented filters by ISPs - and lack of decent company support.... then too much of your income comes from the ISP/telco side.
Work with your ISP, they might give you port 25 for no charge. While I agree that there are going still going to be holes in almost any fix, and blocking port 25 is only a bandaid to a much more serious problem.
Good for them ! Do they also allow authenticated sending from outside their network ?
Yes! | |
| | 
TomAtl
@bellsouth.net
| Dear Bellsouth Agent,
Apparently someone in your office has provided you with inaccurate information again.
I do not have an email server attached to the Bellsouth (FastAccess) DSL network. I have a consumer PC. For several years, I have been able to send email with my computer to my server (located in Texas and hosted with EV1Servers.net) for legitimate email communications with customers, friends, family, and loved ones. Now that bellsouth has blocked the transmission of data with intent to have all bellsouth DSL users redirect their email to your server ("Insert the Outgoing Mail Server (SMTP Server). This should be set to mail.bellsouth.net" from »home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s···.htm&ck=
And the statement "It simply allows BellSouth Internet Service to help ensure that spam is not being sent out through the BellSouth network." From »home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s···er=y&ck=
And your statement "Our customers are more than welcome to use our SMTP server (mail.bellsouth.net) to send personal mail, even for non-BellSouth e-mail addresses." ) only proves that bellsouth is using this means to collect users personal and confidential data without them knowing or being aware of it. How else would you be able to verify unless you in some way read the content of the email. Also, sounds to me that your servers are configured to be an open relay which is a big no no in the network would.
The statement made by the above web posting on your site also says, "If your secondary e-mail account is an AOL account, you should not have to make changes to your e-mail software." Means that AOL mail users have been excluded from this port blocking, blocking of data, and the anti-Spam and e-mail class of service rules configured on the BellSouth mail system. Sounds to me that non-bellsouth email users and non-AOL email users have been blocked.
I'm shocked to see that bellsouth does not stop the porn that transmits across your network or even the virus infected websites, but chooses to block email or more specifically the transmission of my data.
Here are the points I wish to make.
1. I've had unlimited access and data communication via the network until 10pm Monday evening for several years.
2. Your reference to running a server is merely a smoke screen as I am not running a server. Although any bellsouth customer that has the netsky or beagle virus is running a server. Actually every Windows PC is technically a server by definition.
3. AOL has been excluded from the blocking tactic.
4. You block the transmission of data, and then tell me to purchase a more expensive plain to open the port back up. Sounds like extortion to me, or do you refer to it as the American way of doing business.
5. I think BellSouth aka FastAccess is guilty of breaking the law more specifically the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act. OCGA 16-9-90
6. I will be seeking a warrant and permission for class action. | |
| | | | | | | | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
1 edit | Re: its about time hehehe..
ROFL..
Good take, man.. | |
| | | | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: This blows... Once again, I have to say, blocking ports across the board only masks the symptoms, it does NOT solve the underlying problem.
It's better to identify and disconnect zombied systems. Even with port 25 blocked, zombies can still do a lot of damage, such as DDoS attacks. And as this tactic becomes more popular, spammers will just find other ways to get their crap out, so it doesn't stop spam either.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: This blows... said by kpatz  :
Once again, I have to say, blocking ports across the board only masks the symptoms, it does NOT solve the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is that "lots of users are idiots", and I don't think that's an ISP's problem to solve.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | | 
Sysadmin
NoBama
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-07
Sacramento, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| I think it is a good short term solution to slow down the spammers. You are correct that they will find ways around it but at least it will break what they have in place for the moment.
In the long term ISP's need to force the responsibility on the end users (by making it part of their TOS) and take them offline of they don not fix their zombie computers.
--
Join Team Starfire SETI@Home
Put your unused clock cycles to work! | |
| | 
drake
drizzy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by Boomerang86 :
OOL has crappy mail servers already. Now they expect people who use outside mail servers to switch back? I think not.
I don't know about crappy mail servers, ever since I've been a subscriber with their service(Since December 2003), I haven't had any issue with their servers or even getting mail; So far, I've been satisfied...
--
Intel Pendleton 2 Motherboard, Pentium 4 @ 2.00GHz, Dell 128 MB + 512MB DIMM RAM,
GeForce4 MX 420 64MB Vid Card, CNET Pro200WL 10/100 NIC, 16x DVD-ROM and Dell 48x CD-RW, 40GB HD. | |
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| Say what you want.... ...it's only a matter of time until this is S.O.P. for all residential broadband providers, and it can't happen soon enough for me. Everyone got used to the big wide open internet but that's obviously a failed experiment.
Time to pony up for a business-grade service, or find other means of relaying through a remote server (which isn't really difficult at all.) | |
| 
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
1 edit | OOL not blocking 25 for me Guess they know I would be pissed if I could not use my third-party SMTP server.
Of course, if they didn't have ridiculously low restrictions on our use of the OOL SMTP server, I would be happy to use it.
Edit: Fortunately my mail provider has an alternate port for SMTP in case your IPS blocks 25. Just changed to use the alternate - no sense in waiting until OOL gets around to blocking me.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
| | 
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
| Re: OOL not blocking 25 for me ________________________________________________________
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.
_________________________________________________________
In my opinion, spammers are terrorist who hide behind the internet so they can propagate their crimes. This is why all ISP's must be forced to block port 25.
--
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
| | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: OOL not blocking 25 for me said by antiphishing :
In my opinion, spammers are terrorist who hide behind the internet so they can propagate their crimes. This is why all ISP's must be forced to block port 25.
So, let's ban email on our ISP's network because of those spammin' terrorists then!
That's sort of like outlawing cars because people use them to get away after robbing a bank, or use them in drive by shootings.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I don't want unnecessary restrictions on my Internet access. I'm not even in an OOL area but this topic really gets me steamed. If an idiot gets zombied, or a spammer sets up shop, well then that subscriber is in violation of the TOS and should be disconnected.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | |
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
| Re: OOL not blocking 25 for me __________________________________________________________
So, let's ban email on our ISP's network because of those spammin' terrorists then!
___________________________________________________________
I think that ISP's in the United States should blacklist all IP numbers coming from the countries of China, Brazil, and Korea. If these three counties want to harbor spammers activities then the United States should stop peering and transiting with them to stop the ever increasing amount of junk email from flooding into North America.
--
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
| | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | We must destroy the net in order to save it, eh?
Keep your blocks off my ports. | |
| | | 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| said by antiphishing :
________________________________________________________
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.
_________________________________________________________
In my opinion, spammers are terrorist who hide behind the internet so they can propagate their crimes. This is why all ISP's must be forced to block port 25.
The black lists are the terrorists. And the ISPs have no choice but to give in to them if they want to keep customers. | |
| Natfly
join:2004-02-26
Fairfax, VA
| bleh I'd much rather have the ISPs actively seek out the spammers and either block them or just kill their service. I don't think blocking a specific port across all of their users is a good solution. Although most users wont know much less even care about this limitation. This is very similar to the admins at my college blocking all outgoing traffic on 21 and 80. They deny that 21 is blocked and claim that blocking 80 was a side effect of their new 'virus protection'. | |
| | dragonhorse
join:2004-06-30
Ottawa, ON
| Re: bleh said by Natfly :
They deny that 21 is blocked and claim that blocking 80 was a side effect of their new 'virus protection'.
that is quite BULLSHIT....a lot of standard access (opening webpages or so) usually use that particular port.. 80 that is
dragonhorse.... | |
| | | Natfly
join:2004-02-26
Fairfax, VA
| Re: bleh said by dragonhorse :
said by Natfly :
They deny that 21 is blocked and claim that blocking 80 was a side effect of their new 'virus protection'.
that is quite BULLSHIT....a lot of standard access (opening webpages or so) usually use that particular port.. 80 that is
dragonhorse....
Yes I'm aware of 80 being the standard http port, which is why other students like myself who are running web servers had to host on some other port such as 81 to get them to be accessible. | |
| 
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium,MVM
join:2000-01-13
Beaverton, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Non-Default Ports Many mail servers also allow non-default ports which bypass this quite easily, and as a matter of fact one of my smtp servers uses non-default ports due to the fact that that many isp's block tcp 25 outbound to other than their mail server.
This is not a good fix, and will cause as many problem with legit use as it will for malicious use. Its also very easy to listen on a non-default port...
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
The biggest error is sitting in front of your keyboard. | |
| | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Non-Default Ports said by BlitzenZeus :
Many mail servers also allow non-default ports which bypass this quite easily, and as a matter of fact one of my smtp servers uses non-default ports due to the fact that that many isp's block tcp 25
Exactly. I get so tired of this issue. It's just another half-step solution that perhaps makes spammers get one more notch sophisticated but costs legions of legit use headaches. I relay via port26 to my 3rd-party provider who has had all their SMTPs monitoring 25+26 for years due to this "block 25 at the perimeter" mentality. It's nothing more than a stop-gap measure that gets parlayed into "solution" status only because ISPs cannot get it together to simply block all the ranges of spam-friendly hosts. If just 20% of the mail-providing ISPs could get it together to block the spam-friendlies would fall in-line so fast it would make our collective heads spin: they'd loose every legit acct if legit accts couldn't get their mail through. 2 months of pain for some for a permanent fix; sounds like heaven at this point. | |
| ggtaylor
Michigeezer
join:2001-04-02
Saginaw, MI
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
| No problem sending, they just don't get received. My work mail uses a third-party mailer. I don't have any problem sending e-mails but when I cc: myself at hotmail and at home, the hotmail copy ends up in junkmail, even after identifying it as valid mail. The copy to my home (Charter) never gets "received". Makes me wonder, what other valid mail I'm not getting due to arbitrary rules that seem to be applied. | |
|
DarkOne427
@telus.net
| Not going to work The ISP are stupid for doing stuff like this, there are other ways or going around it, (just like people who pirate software, the companies keep trying to come up with new protections but they are always cracked) what it does is screw the little guy, I run a legit company and I was unable to send emails using my pocomail and 3rd party mail server which I pay for, for 4 days, it cost me a fair bit of money (I'm in advertising not random spam). Anyways as I said there are other ways to go around it, most mail servers will accept port 2525 which sends just fine, that's all I did and it works great.
mail.yourdomain.com:2525
Regards | |
|
GenBlood
@attbi.com
| Blocking port 25 ... is a good idea ... Port 25 should be block, if you have residential internet
access from a local ISP. You shouldn't be running a mail
server or any other type of server. If you need internet
access for your business, get a T-1 line. Also, DSL has
business class internet access too.
I'm also sick of getting all this S^&%TY spam in my in box.
The ISPs should be scanning all incoming emails and
deleting them before we can D/L them. They should be
tracing where they come from and block anything that comes
from them.
The ISPs need to talk to each other and work on a plan to
ban spammers. Also, the PCs that are infected by spammers
or viruses should be diconnected from the ISP.
People need to wake up and an spell the roses... If you
get email giving free stuff you should delete it right
away ... People need to think before clicking links ...
from emails ... | |
| |
cowboy
So Much For Subtlety
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Morgan Hill, CA
·Covad Communications
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Blocking port 25 ... is a good idea ... Port 25 should be block, if you have residential internet
access from a local ISP. You shouldn't be running a mail
server or any other type of server. If you need internet
access for your business, get a T-1 line. Also, DSL has
business class internet access too.
Ah... so, because I'm not slave to Windows, and do more than surf the web for porn, irc (sorry, aim), I should pay significantly more...
I'm also sick of getting all this S^&%TY spam in my in box.
The ISPs should be scanning all incoming emails and
deleting them before we can D/L them. They should be
tracing where they come from and block anything that comes
from them.
So do something about it...install your own filtering... I run File::Scan, Clamav, and F-PROT - then Spamassassin (3.0rc - don't go lower)... I'm now down to less than 1 uncaught spam per day (from several hundred).
Yes, the ISPs should get rid of any virus, and should stop
garaunteed spam... But I still check my detected spam for classification errors (and occasionally find one or two) - who will do that when the ISP scans your mail.
At some point in time, we have to be responsible for ourselves - the ISP can no more completely free us from evil than can our government keep us completely safe.
The ISPs need to talk to each other and work on a plan to
ban spammers. Also, the PCs that are infected by spammers
or viruses should be diconnected from the ISP.
Indeed, at work - an infected box is removed from the lan post haste... it doesn't take much, alot of the scanning can be automated ! But due-diligence costs $ to setup... Our economy is based upon this moments $, not future savings/benefits
People need to wake up and an spell the roses... If you
get email giving free stuff you should delete it right
away ... People need to think before clicking links ...
from emails ...
Things haven't changed much since P.T. Barnum, why do you expect them to change now ?
--
Richard Nelson | |
| | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| What if I want to run a server for non buisness use? Like for hosting images for posting on message boards that don't allow uploads? Or maybe just hosting your personal web page? Or maybe just an ftp server to store my personal files?
And if you don't want spam from dynamic IP addresses, why not block e-mail from dynamic IP addresses? | |
| | rkris2000
join:2004-08-30
Rochester, NY
| said by GenBlood:
Port 25 should be block, if you have residential internet
access from a local ISP. You shouldn't be running a mail
server or any other type of server. If you need internet
access for your business, get a T-1 line. Also, DSL has
business class internet access too.
Whatever man...! I need to access my company mail server from home and on the road, especially with this SPF thing now. Besides, the optimum SMTP server is well known for it's reliability!!!! I gotta pay for using a third party service to send my mail (smtpport.com) to my OWN mail server, cuz of these stupid policies.
-Rob | |
| 
rstrandb
Premium
join:2003-04-17
Albany, GA
·Mediacom
| Hooray I hope there comes a day when every ISP does this so all you people can quit whining about spam. It's maddening to work for an ISP and listen to people complain about SPAm, then when an ISP does this to fight spam, those same people whine about port blocking. Welcome to the real world where you do not get your cake and get to eat it too. There is no legitimate reason for a residential customer to send out hundreds of emails daily.
--
Deep thanks to those who defend America from those who would do us harm. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| What about MX records? Sending email via another port is all fine and good, but last I knew, if I'm running my own mail server, and I try to send mail through my server to another host, the server will look up the MX record for the domain I'm sending to and send the message to that host. Unless these ISPs know something I don't, the MX record only shows what address to send mail to, not what port and address to send mail to! So I guess everyone here is saying that noone should be allowed to run their own mail server if they so choose? I don't run a mail server anymore because a friend of mine gave me access to his T1 line, and yes I do get maybe 7-10 spam messages a day, but I can live with that. If ports are going to be blocked like that, at least give those that actually want access to those ports, like say to run their own mail servers the option of doing so, instead of basically saying "you can only use our mail server and that's it." It's the same internet whether you're on a DSL line or a T1 or T3 or better, so I say fine block port 25 outbound for normal users who won't know or care about it, but for those that wish to do their own stuff on the internet, give them the chance to do so! I am fortunate to have an ISP that doesn't restrict mail access and in fact let's me run whatever servers I want provided I don't use them for illegal purposes. I don't have the issues of blocked ports, but I still feel strongly about this. The only ports that should be blocked internet wide are 135-139, 445, and 5000, but not mail, or at least not without the option to be able to have it opened. | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| Re: What about MX records? LOL... the typical NIMBY response. What about people who want to use ports 135-139??? You said it's all the same internet; dangit, it's my right to leave my servers flapping in the breeze and have them listen for NetBIOS traffic!! Don't filter anything!! {note -- this is sarcasm)
I know of a couple other products that use port 5000 for their remote management features -- what about them? Why should they have to be reconfigured to use a different port because some stupid ISP wants to filter that port traffic? (also sarcasm)
E-mail servers know to use port 25 to connect to the MTA specified by the MX record. That's why we standardized on port 25 for SMTP.
Your e-mail program, on the other hand, can very easily be configured to use a different port setting on a per-account basis, if there's really a need. | |
| jandir
join:2002-05-27
Oakton, VA
| It's not about Spam at all It is about locking people to their service. once people are forced to use their ISP's email account it becomes very difficult to change the ISP.
It is the same as before the wireless number portability was introduced. people did not change wireless companies because they would have to get a new phone number. | |
| ficken7
join:2004-08-20
| isp the goal of the isp is to cut down on network traffic.
since novice users (which account for probably 95% of all users) out there do not run their windoze updates quite like they should, isps have to do this. why not monitor 25 on a subscriber level and notify accordingly? scripts can be written to do this (ever hear of perl - or how about python? and why not good ole C?) instead of treating the problem, they are treating the symptoms - blocking 25 still allows for them to be insecure. the isps should make more of an effort to educate their subscribers. until they start taking these proactive measures to do this no one will catch on and the problem only continues to get worse.....tomorrow it may exploits in other ways. like with all those folks out there using kazaa.....
so my messages to the i$p's out there: teach your users how to use thier computers cuz its only gonna get worse..... | |
| BleuScreen
join:2004-08-31
Aquebogue, NY
| Waah, waah, waah. I mean really, this is ridiculous. All you have to do is reconfigure your client to use your ISP's outgoing mail server. If you're not doing anything wrong, this shouldn't even be an issue. There are many other issue's with the net that deserve this kind of attention, port 25 blocking shouldn't be one of them. I mean, half of you probably yelled at your ISP's Tech Support Reps because you were getting spam, and when they do something about it, you yell even louder! If you don't like it, go elsewhere. You have a choice in this world. | |
| | ripplesouth
join:2004-10-17
Surrey, BC
| Re: Waah, waah, waah. Just because you have a choice or alternative doesn't mean that choice or alternative would be anywhere close to being a better choice that you would actually like. Choosing between the least of two evils, or hard choices come up to. The people on this forum choose to do what's best for them after a hostile act by their ISP, and I don't see why you attack them in such an ignorant and blind fashion well unless of course you have not done the math on what their choices or alternatives would be. Bottom line people are going to do what's best for themselves. | |
| | | |
|
|
Blocking Port 25
Re: its about time
Good luck, keep us posted as to the responce you (don't) receive.
This blows...