how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2004-02-28 13:07:54: As spotted by users Comcast has accumulated quite a record at the anti-spam registries, with many subscriber IPs spewing vast quantites of spam. ..
|
 kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | They could hire me I need a job, I could do it.
I hope they go about it the right way, instead of limiting service by blocking port 25, etc. I'll switch to Verizon if that happens. | |
| |  natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO | Re: They could hire me They need to block 25. No reason you can't use thier smtp servers. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: They could hire me I think that is a bad idea. By ISPs blocking port 25 they cannot connect to other servers (like there domain hosting company) to send legitimate email. By doing this others create a work around, you can use a different port. After a while the non-standard port becomes standard. Then ISPs begin blocking other ports.
P2P has the majority of users doing illegal stuff (I know, some of it is legal but most is not). Does this mean ISPs should block those services too?
What about VOIP? Using VOIP services from other companies means a loss in profits for the ISP if they offer VOIP. Block that too?
IRC generates a ton of non-legitimate "chatter".
You get my point. ISPs should not block ports, they should terminate users that break the rules. | |
| | | | natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO | Re: They could hire me How do you use non-standard ports for email? Other servers won't look at 28 or something.
People forget it's a residential service and not a business one. If you want to send email, use smtp.comcast.net. Otherwise, block it. I'm sick of putting in cable modem users in my spam list. The few/stupid ruin it for the many. A shame, but life goes on. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They could hire me said by natter:
How do you use non-standard ports for email? Other servers won't look at 28 or something.
Other servers won't, but a hosting company can set their servers so that they accept mail on port 28 from their customers. It's a very simple thing to do, and I'd do it for my customers in a second if anyone needed it. | |
| | | | | |  technickPremium
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO
kudos:1 | Re: They could hire me said by Jeremy341:
said by natter:
How do you use non-standard ports for email? Other servers won't look at 28 or something.
Other servers won't, but a hosting company can set their servers so that they accept mail on port 28 from their customers. It's a very simple thing to do, and I'd do it for my customers in a second if anyone needed it.
That is the easy way of solving a problem, but it will cause more problems than it solves. I do not use my isp's mail personally for many facts, I prefer my own mail server as I can customize it, set other rules, and basically be the boss.
Maybe something like by default they block those ports on a per customer bases by default, and you can call in and have them remove those blocks.
--
AMD 2500, 1024 MEG PC 3200, 180 GIG HDD, MSI KT4 Ultra Board, MSI GEFORCE 4 TI 4600»www.streamfire.net/portfolio | |
|
| | | | | | said by natter:
People forget it's a residential service and not a business one. If you want to send email, use smtp.comcast.net. Otherwise, block it. I'm sick of putting in cable modem users in my spam list. The few/stupid ruin it for the many. A shame, but life goes on.
Bullshit! Many people use their internet connections for things other than just surfing web pages and email friends and family. Once ISPs start blocking ports to protect/correct the stoopid (not the cable modem users,) the rest of us lose!
Rules, rules, and yet more rules won't make anything any better. It will make it stoopider! | |
| | | | | | jsouthJsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: They could hire me If you need to run a server or have business needs you should use the business end otherwise you use the residential version. If you are running a server on a residential line be careful. A lot of ISPs consider that a TOS violation and could cancel your service. Cox blocked port 25 and it made people mad. I am glad they did it though. A lot of people who were complaining about not being able to do business and stuff with port 25 blocked were on residential lines and they were forced either to cancel service or get the business service. Either way it cut down the crap on residential lines. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: They could hire me In theory that makes perfect sense. In practice, paying for Comcast's Small Biz package does nothing for you. No static IP, can't run a server, I'm still using the same hardware I was on the residential side. All I'm getting for the addition $40/mo is a quicker response time if my circuit goes down.
--
"Don't think Meat, it can only hurt the ballclub." - Crash Davis | |
|
| | | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by natter:
How do you use non-standard ports for email? Other servers won't look at 28 or something.
Most/Many SMTP Servers monitor not only Port25 (The MTA [Mail Transmission Agent] Port for Server-to-Server forwarding of Email) but Port587 (The MSA [Mail Submission Agent] Port that is SUPPOSED to be used to submit Email into the System instead of Port25). If an ISP REQUIRES the use of Port587 (along with SMTP AUTH as Required by the Port587 RFC) for all To-Be-Relayed mail submission to their Servers (no matter if it comes from their LAN or the Internet WAN) then they solve the issue of Trojan Spam Code pumping SPAM through their system. | |
|
| | | | | Well, at this point it couldn't hurt to try SOMETHING, because so far it seems Comcast thinks it will just go away on it's own.
--
"The Stars Win The Stanley Cup, The Stars Win The Stanley Cup", Ralph Strangis. | |
| | | | | natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO | Re: They could hire me Agreed. They need to get off their butts. They will probably overeact in some way. | |
| | | | | | | The more I think about it, it seems they aren't even hoping it goes away, they just don't care about the spam problem.
--
"The Stars Win The Stanley Cup, The Stars Win The Stanley Cup", Ralph Strangis. | |
| | | | | | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: They could hire me said by wheelzoff:
The more I think about it, it seems they aren't even hoping it goes away, they just don't care about the spam problem.
Could be they don't want to lose the revenue stream they get from the spammers on their network. | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: They could hire me That could be it too, with the millions of subscribers they have, they would definitely lose some cash getting rid of the many many infected users. Plus the cost of actually finding and removing them.
--
"The Stars Win The Stanley Cup, The Stars Win The Stanley Cup", Ralph Strangis. | |
|
| | | KUppianoKarl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA | said by keyboard5684:
You get my point. ISPs should not block ports, they should terminate users that break the rules.
Amen to that. Removing legitimate services from all users to keep a few users from "going bad" is a rotten strategy. | |
| | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: They could hire me Hosting a mail server from a residential account is not a legitimate service that is being provided to you on your residential account. You are getting that service by violating the TOS/AUP. Since you are not paying for that service in the first place, you are out nothing if they block it.
puritan | |
| | | | | |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Re: They could hire me Port 25 is used by BOTH servers AND email clients to send mail to the SMTP server. Such a block would prevent the perfectly legitimate use of using an alternative SMTP server.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network | |
|
| | | | | keyboard5684... according to RFC standards, relaying mail thru a domain is not permitted. you are only allowed to use the 'local transport agent', i.e. the SMTP server that is located on your domain. i might also add that it is also against RFC to run a public mail system on a dhcp address.
besides... its pretty easy to set up a pop or imap account to download from a remote site, and send out locally.
i work for an isp that does block port 25. we are not huge like comcast, but because of the speeds we offer [9mbps/1mbps] its very easy for a user to pump out a ton of spam VERY quickly [i had the joy of shutting down a spammer on friday  ]. when we did not have port 25 blocked, we had so many spam complaints that we had difficulty getting thru them all in one day. now, with port 25 blocked, we can better tell who is intentionally sending spam, and our workload in regards to spam is much lower. its also alot easier to tell who is intentionally spamming, and who is infected with the latest virus.
another thing that systems really shoud look at doing is checking ALL incoming connections to the mail server. doing this alone makes sure that the mail system contacting you is legit. | |
|
| | | | They will lose a % of customers that need to send mail via there jobs e-mail server.
What they need to do is stop selling modems, but sale routers with these ports filtered and have directions on how to unblock.
Any user smart enough to unblock a router should be reasonably responsible. | |
| | | | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: They could hire me If they do resort to blocking port 25, they should offer a "power users" or "home office" service tier with the port unblocked, and/or email servers allowed, maybe for a little more $ per month. The extra $ could go into monitoring power users to make sure they don't get infected and spew spam, and shut them down if they do.
Although one "can" use smtp.comcast.net for all their mail, there may be reasons one cannot - say because they're working from home or taking online classes and are required to use another server. Or becuase the address they're trying to send to blacklisted comcast's IP range. Also, Comcast's email servers aren't particularly well administered. They tend to block anything that "could" be the virus of the week, for example, try sending an email with an attachment named update.zip, regardless of content, to a comcast.net address. It won't arrive, and no notification that it wasn't sent. | |
| | | | KUppianoKarl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
1 edit | Rather than blocking ports at the server, ISP-supplied modems could be equipped with routers that block most "advanced" services by default.
For some reason, cable modems usually don't come with a NAT router or any kind of firewall/port filtering. ADSL modems often do, and it's not only a good security feature, it makes it easy to set up a nice little SOHO LAN.
They usually ship with all ports open by default, but they are quite easy to OEM with custom settings from the ISP. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| adelphnia introduced a firmware upgrade here in brunswick(when i had them) that enabled the cable modems(or cmts) to block port 25 on all users...i had to use adelphia mail servers..but this was not a problem for me..:)
--
God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com | |
|
| | nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | said by natter:
They need to block 25. No reason you can't use thier smtp servers.
There are two very good reasons not to use Crapcast' smtp servers
1) they are down most of the time
2) thewy lose mail even when they are up. | |
| | |  ki1oPremium
join:2001-04-12
Atlanta, GA | said by natter:
They need to block 25. No reason you can't use thier smtp servers.
I have a reason, I have my own domain email address and I use to use Comcasts smtp servers for my domain email until some isps blocked Comcasts smtp servers for "spam complaints". One example is, about every two months, when I tried to send email to my grandparents on webtv, the email would bounce back with "spam complaints." Then I would have to contact Comcast and eventually (after they stopped playing the blame game) get them to contact webtv to get off the spam list. After a month or two later I could send email to webtv again. Then two months later, the same "spam complaint" problems started again.
If I still used Comcast smtp servers, over half of my friends and family wouldn't be able to receive any of my emails. Now I use my domains smtp server which lets me send up to 50 emails a day for free. The most emails I send in an average day is about 10 or less.
--
Boycott The RIAA | |
| | | | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
1 edit | Re: They could hire me Blocking ports to stop infected boxes from sending spam is like putting a bandaid on an infected sore - it masks the symptom but doesn't solve the problem.
Comcast has crappy email servers, and we'd be forced to use them if they block 25. What would be next, blocking 53 so we can only use their crappy DNS servers? Only allow port 80 to comcast.net? We don't need access to the rest of the web.  Think about it.
As I said, I would switch to DSL in a heartbeat if they ever pull this sort of crap. | |
| | | | LrdVaderPremium
join:2003-12-18
San Diego, CA | said by ki1o:
I have a reason, I have my own domain email address and I use to use Comcasts smtp servers for my domain email until some isps blocked Comcasts smtp servers for "spam complaints". One example is, about every two months, when I tried to send email to my grandparents on webtv, the email would bounce back with "spam complaints."
Unfortunately, that solution has its own set of problems. I found out the hard way that some systems don't like this arrangement.
I tried sending a test message from Yahoo to my main email address. When it arrived, I found that Spamassassin had tagged it as being sent from a machine listed in SORBS. Upon further investigation, I determined that the SORBS-listed machine was my RoadRunner IP, listed in SORBS list of dynamic IP space. If I sent the same message through the RR SMTP server, Spamassassin didn't tag it. My IP appeared in the headers in both cases.
As far as I can tell, Spamassassin noticed that the Yahoo message was sent directly from my IP to Yahoo's server (via Yahoo web mail) without going through RR's SMTP. It interpreted this as an attempt at direct-to-MX spam from a dynamic IP, and flagged the message. In my case, this meant a small increase in the message's spam score. If my mail provider was simply bouncing suspected spam, the message wouldn't have gotten through at all.
So even though you don't use Comcast's SMTP, you still have an interest in the spam problem getting fixed. If it continues at the current rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see mail administrators start rejecting messages that have comcast.net anywhere in the headers. I know I'm getting damn close to setting my account to do just that. | |
|
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I agree... unless you have a business account (with a static IP), port 25 should be blocked for outbound to anywhere except your ISP's SMTP servers | |
| | | | | | | | Blocking port 25 is also a problem when say you are a financial advisor and working from home on a rainy day. All email has to be sent using the SMTP server at the financial advisors home office in order that it is archived per NASD rules. | |
| | | | LrdVaderPremium
join:2003-12-18
San Diego, CA | Re: They could hire me said by akristov:
Blocking port 25 is also a problem when say you are a financial advisor and working from home on a rainy day. All email has to be sent using the SMTP server at the financial advisors home office in order that it is archived per NASD rules.
For sensitive financial information, shouldn't the connection be running over SSL or a VPN anyway? Both will get around a port 25 block. | |
| | | |  hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | akristov showed understanding by posting
"Blocking port 25 is also a problem when say you are a financial advisor and working from home on a rainy day. All email has to be sent using the SMTP server at the financial advisors home office in order that it is archived per NASD rules."
Can you say VPN?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |
| | | | | | If you are working from home you should be using a VPN - especially if you are in the financial services business. | |
|
|  quibblyPremium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX | A cure to help stop spam and virus infected system
My two cents, but here is a simple solution to help stop SPAM and virus/worm infected systems.
1) When a system if found to be infected with a trojan/virus/worm or considered open relay or in any form, relaying spam, have the persons Internet provider cut off their internet access. When the end user calls and states their internet isn't working, the ISP tech support will already have a note and can informing the customer of the problem. The tech support can help the end user fix the problem.
2) Make every high speed user required to have a firewall (hardware) in place.
3) If on dialup, a software firewall installed.
4) If a large amount of spam comes from other countries, block that country until they fix the problem on their end.
All the above would stop all the infected systems, in turn, this will help speed up the internet. Number 1 would probably be one of the hardest because this will require all ISP's to become a little more organized and liable for their actions. Also, it would be great if the government could mandate all the above.
The key would require better communication from ISP to ISP, then from ISP to end user.
I for one receive a large amount of SPAM from Comcast. They seem to have the most unsecured systems around, or it could be they are making money off the systems and do not want to decrease their revenue.
Again, this is just my two cents. The solutions are simple, but in this day and age, simple seems to be the hardest thing to do.
Quibbly | |
| | |  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
 ·DIRECTV
| They could hire me said by quibbly:
1) When a system if found to be infected with a trojan/virus/worm or considered open relay or in any form, relaying spam, have the persons Internet provider cut off their internet access. When the end user calls and states their internet isn't working, the ISP tech support will already have a note and can informing the customer of the problem. The tech support can help the end user fix the problem.
Comcast appears to have an abuse department that either;
•Does not care
•Is so understaffed that they cannot possibly address the current problems
•Is "micro-managed" by upper management to the point that they are not empowered to make termination decisions
•All of the above
The abuse@ mailbox is often full and bounces complaints sent to it, and the postmaster@ address is non-existant . . . a direct violation of RFC2142.
Without an efficient and effective abuse department who reads and acts upon abuse complaints, any and all measures to clean up their network will fail.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|
|  b1gdr3I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28
York, PA | Blocking port 25 makes the most sense. Don't have to educate tard customers that way. I fully support blocking port 25.
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers. | |
|
 gheezerCompooters R UsPremium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
1 edit | MyDoom and it's variants Doomjuice is the latest, and it's spreading quickly, also Seems to be the worm with the greatest impact, it is soooo simple to halt the spread of this pig of a worm, just filter port 3127 on the network. it's a shame Comcast cares not about the integrity of their network | |
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: MyDoom and it's variants It's the same story, I believe, with UUNet. Every day I'm
online, I get dozens of firewall hits from UUNet machines
that are infected, though not by MyDoom. In my case, the
infected machines appear to have some variant of MSBlast
on them. And like Comcast, UUNet seems to care little
about the integrity of their network as well. Maybe it's
time to start a virus DNSBL.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. | |
|
 k_oQue Hora Es?Premium
join:2002-12-05
Lakeport, CA | another "just business" lame decision If Comcast needs an explaination of why it is a priority to stay on top of clients who spam, they need to invite Karl/BBR and the CEO of NAC! | |
|  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Incentive for compromised users Wouldn't it be cheaper and more customer friendly to "incent" [dumb] customers, who's machines are zombied spam-bots, by offering them some kind of one-time discount if they'll download some anti-virus software? I mean yeah they could spend a lot of money to keep spot cleaning it -- or proactively incent users to do the right thing. | |
| |  KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | Re: Incentive for compromised users said by ronpin:
Wouldn't it be cheaper and more customer friendly to "Innocent" [dumb] customers, who's machines are zombied spam-bots, by offering them some kind of one-time discount if they'll download some anti-virus software?
I say kill their accounts and when they call tell them why. Nothing will get their attention faster than denying them access.
Forget a discount, gouge the heck out of them. Charge them a disconnect and reconnect fee. Charge them to have a tech go to their home and verify their system is clean before it goes back on the network. Only be making the customer responsible will you end the problem.
--
"If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier." | |
| | | | | | | | |  Re: Incentive for compromised users
How you gonna collect all these fines and charges, genius boy? Yeah, the state fines you for driving 150, guess what - they have a collection agency with guns and cages called a POLICE FORCE.
All you guys out there with the "disconnect them" and "make them pay" etc., etc., are totally ignoring business realities.
These folks PAY COMCAST FOR SERVICE and have NO IDEA that any of this is going on. You get hardball with them and start disco'ing and charging and etc., and you will find yourself in a huge mess, basically fighting with all of your customers. THEY WON'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY - THEY ARE CUSTOMERS!!
If Comcast followed that path they would be sued by some customers and have collections problems out the yin-yang with others. They would not only lose broadband customers, which they probably don't even make money on to start with, but would also lose these customers' cable TV business, and equipment wouldn't be returned ("They disconnected me for something I didn't even do and I'll be damned if I am sending their crap back"). And they will generate huge bad will in the community of non-propeller heads that makes up the majority of customers, and makes up ALL of the profitable customers I might add. They don't make money off of DSLReports users, gamers, pirates, or cyber-punks. If they make money at all it's from Granny Jones who doesn't understand why the man at the cable company is so upset with her and cut off her service. Granny Jones then tells everyone at the quilting club what happened, they tell their friends, etc., and pretty soon Comcast can't sell accounts to anyone in Granny Jones circle of influence. Comcast will be percieved as mean and unreasonable and a rip-off because they enforce their terms of service. I guarantee it.
I know what I am talking about, I have tried this myself with my own ISP. You guys think you know how to handle it? Jump out there and try it yourself and see how it works for you. | |
|
 GTaylorPremium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX | Got this idea from slashdot Different story but related:
I still get a bunch of hits from Code Red in my logs, too.. from people on the same cable systems.. I'm collecting all their IP's , and am going to start a mass bomb of "NET SEND /DOMAIN:ip 'GET A G'D ANTIVIRUS PROGRAM YOU F'N MORON'" ...
Nevermind the ISP contacting them, imagine if the users were bbr'd. | |
| vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | They will shut you down for downloading to much But not spamming HUNDREDS of thousands of messages across their network...hrmmmm | |
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Why not.... Well MSN 9 premium includes McAfee firewall and anti-virus.
If people will not load and maintain their security software then it is going to have to be up to the ISP to do it. I would offer a choice of software but it would be included in the price. I know this is irritating to those of us who maintain their systems but something has to be done.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
| |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: Why not.... Like my other post on this subject, it can't happen to me.:D I don't use an email client(all web based). | |
|
hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | I think it is fantastic... That the writer of this piece
"Comcast should perhaps pay just one employee to monitor the spam registries such as spamhaus, and act on the listings"
has such a fantastic knowledge of what Comcast is doing. An incredible deduction based on some posts in the Comcast Forum.
Bravo, I applaud you!
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |
| |  RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | Re: I think it is fantastic... said by hobgoblin:
An incredible deduction based on some posts in the Comcast Forum.
What are you trying to say? If Comcast knows about the SBL listings, they certainly aren't DOING anything about them. You don't have to have insider knowledge of Comcast to know that they are screwing things up supremely right now.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
|
newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·DIRECTV
| Yes Comcast, it's expensive to run an abuse dept. . . . and you better start spending some cash NOW.
It is Comcast's responsibility to suspend or terminate abusive subscribers, whose zombied boxes begin spewing thousands of virus laden emails themselves. They set the rules in their AUP/TOS. quote:
It is the responsibility of all Comcast High-Speed Internet customers and all others who have access to Comcast's network ("customer," "you," or "your"), to comply with this AUP and all Comcast policies. As a Service customer, it is your responsibility to secure your computer equipment so that it is not subject to external threats such as viruses, spam, and other methods of intrusion. Failure to comply with these or any other Comcast policies could result in the suspension or termination of your Service.
~snip~
Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies.
»www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
When Comcast neglects to clean up these cesspools, they risk having entire netblocks blacklisted due to their failure to police their network. Ultimately, the rest of the subscribers within these blacklisted netblocks pay the price with loss of connectivity. This is happening NOW, with AOL, Earthlink & Mindspring just the most recent who have begun serious blocking of Comcast emails.
In an interview with the Contra Costa Times concerning Comcast's termination of "bandwidth hogs", Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson said,
quote:
"While it's not our intent to shut off service to our customers, we have an obligation to the majority of our customers that we manage our network."
»www.siliconvalley.com/mld/cctime···0436.htm
Yes, you certainly do, Mr. Johnson . . . and your obligation extends to the rest of the internet who are on the receiving end of your customer's spew.
Why don't I see the abusive spamming zombied machines being shut down at least as much as the "bandwidth hogs"?
I suspect that it's because Comcast chooses to cherry-pick the enforcement of their AUP/TOS based on the bottom line of their P&L statement. Terminating "bandwidth hogs" adds profit to their bottom line, while terminating abusive subscribers would require a substantial initial ramping-up of their abuse department that would reduce profits on two fronts . . . the cost of an effective abuse department and the loss of subscribers once they begin axing the abusers.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
 richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | My views on this matter They terminate users for downloading too much, but won't tell them what the maximum is so they won't be 'downloading too much"
BUT
They allow spammers to go their own way, without doing anything, even though they create huge amounts of network traffic (and slow the rest of us down & fill our mailboxes with junk)
said by Freezone:
What they need to do is stop selling modems, but sell routers with these ports filtered and have directions on how to unblock.
Any user smart enough to unblock a router should be reasonably responsible.
Unfortunately there is such a thing as 'smart, irresponsible friends' I set up someone, who hadn't the fainest idea how, with NAV. Of course, it came up with virus warnings. Another friend of theirs came over, a warning came up & they didn't like it & uninstalled the NAV. Time wasted on my part. I had to go, clean the machine & re-install NAV (and lecture on why it shouldn't be uninstalled)
said by R_Kilroy:
I say kill their accounts and when they call tell them why. Nothing will get their attention faster than denying them access.
Forget a discount, gouge the heck out of them. Charge them a disconnect and reconnect fee. Charge them to have a tech go to their home and verify their system is clean before it goes back on the network. Only be making the customer responsible will you end the problem.
This gets a ++++ vote from me. They know who the spammer is, disconnect them & charge 'em. Why inconvenience the rest of us because of them? | |
| |  fearless345Oh No, You Did What I Told You
join:2002-03-08
Denver, CO
1 edit | Bottom line it is user's responsibility I realize comcast needs to be more aggressive in fixing problems, but until security becomes something that the 'average' user can understand and handle themselves (read 'foolproof') the problem will continue.
Lets face it, security is a challenge for those of us who say we understand it and even then we are not immune.
We could argue for ages about who is responsible for the root cause, the software vendor or the user. With the growth of broadband in the US and wireless security will be the main issue in my opinion.
With the status quo we will just continue to debate this as well as patch issues, virus updating, adware/spyware/malware prevention. Right now this is the users responsibility to administrate, and lets face it, most of them aren't up to the task.
-fearless-
--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool. | |
| | | richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Re: Bottom line it is user's responsibility said by fearless345:
Right now this is the users responsibility to administrate, and lets face it, most of them aren't up to the task.
How true
But there's also the group that just doesn't care or don't want the responsibility.:(
I've run into it at work, when a user says they are going to dial in from home, I ask them 'do you have anti-virus and/or a firewall'. I get responses like 'why','It's too expensive', 'I can't be bothered, I have no time'. I've given up arguing, I just tell my boss about it.
And these are [in theory] professional people. | |
|
 GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA | Blacklist them Only when more and more providers stop taking Comcast mail and complaints rise from their own customers will Comcrap finally get their S together. Instead of worrying about Disney and hiking prices 3 times a year they should take care of their crappy service.
--
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. | |
| | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Yet another reason Yet another reason I'm glad I don't use an email client. Even if(ha ha) my system were to get infected, it can't send email. I haven't even ran OE(or any other client).:D | |
| | RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | Re: Yet another reason said by dadkins:
Even if(ha ha) my system were to get infected, it can't send email.
First off, even if you deleted the icon you still have OE on your system. But many worms don't even NEED a functioning copy of OE, they use their own SMTP engine to propagate. There have been worms that harvested e-mail addresses off web sites. MyDoom harvests addresses from files on your computer. Worms can also propagate through P2P and instant messaging.
Now you're probably a smart user and your webmail probably scans for viruses. But don't think that you're completely invulnerable just because you don't use the copy of OE that's installed on your computer.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: Yet another reason Yes, OE is still on this system, but it has never been ran. No addresses to find, no address books used or installed. If a worm does get on here, it has my permission to email my antivirus company(or any other auto-updating software I have) as much as it likes.
Thanks for your concern though. | |
| | | | | | Re: Yet another reason Like Rhobite said, it doesn't matter if you have used (or are currently using) an email client, as far as some worms are concerned. The worms search various files (not just address book formats) for email addresses and use a self-contained SMTP engine to send out email on your connection. It would be very surprising if you did not have email addresses somewhere on your system - in documents, worksheets, help files, read me files, etc. | |
|
1 edit | Not to be pessimistic ... I've always thought the intent of the usual ISP prohibition against mail servers, web servers, etc. was not specifically to stop user servers, but to avoid the potential excessive bandwidth usage that such servers often cause. I doubt that any ISP cares if I have a webserver that gets 3 hits a day, or a mail server that handles 10 emails a day. I am satisfied with my current ISP's mail server, but I have thought about setting up my own in the past, when I used ISPs who did have poorly-maintained mail servers. Also, if a user operates their own mail server, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is business-related and that user should be paying for business-tier service.
It seems obvious to me that large ISPs (both cable and DSL) base their response primarily on cost, and anything which requires human intervention (such as an effective abuse department) gets a very low priority. As an earlier poster said, bandwidth usage costs the ISP real money, so they jump all over it. But a spam relay can send out lots of small emails, creating a nuisance for lots of other internet users, without necessarily tripping the bandwidth alarm. Until it does, the ISPs don't seem to care.
Yes, there are a huge number of naive, uneducated and/or lazy users. But I would think temporary loss of internet service would provide a good wakeup call. The ISP could simply send an email to the user identifying the problem and giving them 7 days to respond and to fix it. If the user hadn't responded and fixed it within that time period, they would lose their connection for a 7-day period (or whatever), and would be re-examined upon reconnect. Repeat offenders would be terminated after a 2nd or 3rd offense. Theoretically, the naive/lazy users would comply and the ISP wouldn't lose them as customers. The hard-core offenders (presumably a small percentage of the ISP's customers, but a large percentage of the nuisance to others) would end up being dropped. Not a perfect response, but a decent compromise. Of course, this would all require the ISP to maintain an effective abuse department, which seems unlikely.
You know, if you continually leave your keys in your car, and it is "borrowed" and used for a liquor store robbery, or a drug delivery, or is towed from a handicapped parking spot, it gets impounded or confiscated, even if you're just "naive" or lazy. Similarly, if someone leaves their home unlocked everytime they leave town, and it gets used as a part-time crackhouse or otherwise causes a nuisance in the neighborhood, they face potential legal problems. So it seems reasonable that a computer user should get their connection "impounded", at least temporarily, if it is used to cause a widespread nuisance to others.
Unfortunately, most ISPs will either do nothing, or overreact with the port 25 block because it's an "easier" (= cheaper) response ...
| |
| | | verizon connecting to comcast hey i have a server on comcast@home account. just small web and ftp which is locked down so only i or someone i know can get into it. now if i connect to the internet using verizon it will not work....the right way. ex. i run remote desktop it will connect but show nothing but a black screen then timeout. same with the ftp, it will connect and ask for password but never show whats on my ftp. anyother brand x isp works fine but not verizon any ideas? | |
|
| |
|
·