Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Ways Around
Our mail server software allows multiple SMTP ports, so we just opened another port for our clients.
Problem solved.
Most 3rd party mail hosting services should allow this.
--
Use the OS tool for the job - loser fanboy. |
|
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
| precedent
The only way these tactics could feed into net neutrality is if they are used as a precedent for other, slimier practices. If a carrier can get mileage out of saying "well we already break functionality on mail ports, so why not service x?" then it could be seen as part of the net neutrality debate.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| Let's not confuse.
Let's not confuse net neutrality with unrelated issues of an ISPs right to block certain material on their network. Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues? Net neutrality is about giving all data traveling over the internet equal priority. Once it hits an Intranet with packets bound to the customer it's a different ball game. |
|
spectroanon
@dyn-intl.com | nothing to see here
did anybody explained to that moron he can get around the restriction by configuring smtp-auth and relaying through MSN mail servers?
I have no idea about MSN dialup but I bet they support that. |
|
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| port 25 blocks are fine as long as folks are aware of them
I don't mind a port 25 block, if it's made clear to users that it's in place, and there's an option to get the port unblocked either by getting a business level of service or do like what DSL extreme does, and allow the customer to unblock the port themselves. For users that truly want port 25 outbound to anywhere other than their current ISP, and especially users wanting port 25 inbound to run their own mail server, they should have the option to do so. so not sure though if I'd call that part of net neutrallity though. |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| many services have alternate ports available...
The block prevents users from sending outgoing mail via any third party mail-hosting services. "any" is too all-encompassing. It may have been true eons ago but these days I think only the crappiest hosts don't have port 26 (etc) open.
Speaking of "these days"... isn't webmail the craze anyways? How many people even have an honest-to-goodness dedicated mail client that depends on SMTP to send mail?
Heh... I suppose forcing open port 25 outbound based on net neutrality issues could be extended. Is it "neutral" when a provider tries to protect themselves during DDOS attack by dropping packets or diverting traffic etc?
--
My Site |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
1 edit | reply to Maxo
Re: Let's not confuse.
The real problem is that "Net Neutrality" has already jumped the shark. It's being used as a battle flag against anything some dunderheaded pundit doesn't like.
ISPs blocking ports is to Net Neutrality what permit parking is to driving. There's always a way around the "problem".
Now, if an ISP starts charging to send email, and then blocks anything that looks like an email packet from evading their for-pay SMTP server, then we have a "Network Neutrality" problem. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Maxo
"Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues?"
Yes, yes and yes. The ISP has no right to do any of those things. The end user is responsible for spam. The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping.
Once the ISP starts blocking ANYTHING, they cease to be an ISP, and become a 'web browsing service'. I most certainly do NOT want to pay for a 'web browsing service', I pay for an IP address. And I expect ALL traffic, regardless of source, destination or protocol to be serviced by my ISP. Because remember, ISP stands for INTERNET service provider.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | said by karlmarx  :I'm posting to give my opinion on this subject. *GROAN* |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to 04875776
DING DING DING
We have a winner.... |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
·Speakeasy
| This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre
(last mile facilities) to 3rd party ISP's..
Give consumers a choice between different ISP's. (Who have terms of service and conditions not set by ILEC.)
Note: I use Speakeasy/Covad DSL over BS wires and have no port or server restrictions.
Redundancy.. Putting all your marbles in one large ISP basket is just begging Mr. Murphy to do his worst. BS customers have recently suffered through several wide scale failures. DNS.. Mail.. Routing.. Radius..etc..
|
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| As other's have mentioned...
Many 3rd party mail providers accept other ports (eg .Mac is 587).
What's funny is the total lies the cable industry is throwing out there as net neutrality becomes a public issue. Just the other day Cox had an ad proclaiming net neutrality as a scheme to gouge consumers to make silicon valley fat cats rich. Oh brother. The cable and telco whores have absolutely no shame. Hopefully Google and other content providers, without which there would be no cable or telco HSI (no content = no subscribers), will put together ads of their own telling the truth about cable and telco attempts to double dip and blackmail competitors to the detriment of their customers. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
 ·linode
| The way I see it...
As soon as an ISP starts to block common ports, used by other pay services, we have an issue. I don't know if it's a net neutrality issue, but it sure is an issue that needs to be looked at.
The practice of blocking, or otherwise degrading any service the consumer wishes to use, should be an issue we all fight against.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Let's not confuse.
They do have every right. It's called a TOS or Terms of Service that you agree upon. Don't like a TOS use a different provider of course most have this practise. Still don't like it? You can always use dialup.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to karlmarx
quote:
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously based on that.
You missed the 'service' in Internet Service Provider. You evidently missed where you agreed to terms and conditions as well.
You rent the use of their network to connect to the internet, they can supply this connection with any restriction they see fit. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :"Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues?" Yes, yes and yes. The ISP has no right to do any of those things. The end user is responsible for spam. The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping. Once the ISP starts blocking ANYTHING, they cease to be an ISP, and become a 'web browsing service'. I most certainly do NOT want to pay for a 'web browsing service', I pay for an IP address. And I expect ALL traffic, regardless of source, destination or protocol to be serviced by my ISP. Because remember, ISP stands for INTERNET service provider. And what do you think happens when every user within your ISP's network is blacklisted because of botnets, worms, spam, viruses, etc...? You can't send mail to any domain. And then you'll complain to your ISP that you can't send mail to your friends and family.
It's an evil cycle and the easiest solution is to let the ISP do some of the filtering for the user. Too many people don't update their PC's and don't have an AV solution, so what choice does the ISP have?
They have a responsibility to provide me, as a customer, a reliable service. If they can't do that, they'll lose me as a customer. So in order to do that, they filter port 25 and any viruses/spam that hit their network. I'm okay with that because 5 years ago my ISP didn't have those policies and I couldn't send mail to many people because my ISP was blacklisted on every RBL.
--
Sens vs Leafs (3-1) - Round 5 of 8: Dec 30 |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to squid7
Re: As other's have mentioned...
said by squid7 :Many 3rd party mail providers accept other ports (eg .Mac is 587). What's funny is the total lies the cable industry is throwing out there as net neutrality becomes a public issue. Just the other day Cox had an ad proclaiming net neutrality as a scheme to gouge consumers to make silicon valley fat cats rich. Oh brother. The cable and telco whores have absolutely no shame. Hopefully Google and other content providers, without which there would be no cable or telco HSI (no content = no subscribers), will put together ads of their own telling the truth about cable and telco attempts to double dip and blackmail competitors to the detriment of their customers. Heh, those show those here in the East Coast on the Time Warner network too. They are soo over dramatic I have to laugh.
Even the guys voice.
--
Use the OS tool for the job - loser fanboy. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Yep.
Sure, it's a net neutrality issue. The ISP requires you to use its mail server rather than any you care to. The issue is the same with mail as it is with VoIP or any other service the ISP might care to block. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Matt
Re: Ways Around
said by Matt :Our mail server software allows multiple SMTP ports, so we just opened another port for our clients. Problem solved. Most 3rd party mail hosting services should allow this. Mine does. By default many hosters open up port 26 in addition to 25 for sending mail. I have my laptop configured as such, as I couldn't send mail a few times when at family or friends houses.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Weak Argument
For starters, the blocking of port 25 does not prevent the use of outside mail services. All it prevents is either the running of an MTA on ISP subscriber systems or the direct delivery of mail to remote MTAs.
SMTP clients should be using SMTP submission ports at any rate. They should use the RFC-described ports of either 587 for STARTTLS-capable clients or 465 for SSL-capable clients. When set up, these ports have an almost 100% authentication requirement for use. Contrast this to the general transmission SMTP port 25 which never (without breaking RFCs) requires authentication on delivery attempts. Allowing any and every ISP subscriber to directly send out to port 25 allows that ISP's subscribers to spam remote MTAs, directly, particularly if they are part of a bot-net.
So, no, this isn't a net neutrality issue. The only way it would ever become a net neutrality issue is if ISPs started charging for their own SMTP services AND blocked all SMTP-related ports.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
