 jaaPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| Any restriction is a service downgrade Any additional restriction a provider places on a service is a downgrade. The only question is how important that downgrade is to a particular subscriber.
Inbound port 25 blocking only affects users running their own mail servers - which OOL already prohibits.
Outbound port 25 blocking only affects those who use an external smtp server, which is probably a small percentage. Of those, most can either switch to use the OOL smtp server, or use an alternate port for their mail server.
Those who are most affected may leave for another service. Unfortunately, they may have a hard time finding a provider who does not block port 25, or worse, switch to another provider just to find they start blocking port 25.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
 PlasticmanWill Work For BandwidthPremium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI | Well if they want to have access to port 25. Then they should see about upgrading to a SOHO account.......
Plasticman |
|
jaaPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| They do not need to upgrade to SOHO. They can just use an alternate port. My hosting company provides and alternate port. 1and1 provides an alternate port.
I just don't see why this is an issue. The problem is that port 25 has 2 uses: mail server to server transfer, and mail client to server transfer. Should have been using two different ports from the beginning.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
 reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | reply to jaa
They can switch to DSL. I know speakeasy advertises that they don't block ports. |
|
kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | said by reub2000:
They can switch to DSL. I know speakeasy advertises that they don't block ports.
Not everyone can get DSL, or Speakeasy. I for one would love to see cable and DSL providers offer a "Power User" tier that allows servers (at least to an extent) and no port blocking, at maybe $5-10 higher than the standard residential service. Then those of us who want or need to use email servers other than the ISP's have a choice.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. |
|
 wolfoxGentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL | If anything, it would cost $LESS$. Think about it - without having to monitor, wave a big stick over your Internet experience, etc. Just leaving you alone does not cost any more dough...
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
|
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to jaa
said by jaa:
I just don't see why this is an issue. The problem is that port 25 has 2 uses: mail server to server transfer, and mail client to server transfer. Should have been using two different ports from the beginning.
SMTP is much older than any of the client mail protocols (e.g. POP). So, there was never any call for a "client" port in the original specification. SPAM was a fairly non-existent problem when POP was first created, so there still wasn't a compelling reason to add a client-specific port for SMTP trafficing.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to wolfox
said by wolfox:
If anything, it would cost $LESS$. Think about it - without having to monitor, wave a big stick over your Internet experience, etc. Just leaving you alone does not cost any more dough...
Pushing a new rule to your routers and firewalls isn't exactly super expensive. And, it's not like it's a recurring cost. It's definitely a lower cost than responding to complaints about unblocked compromised systems.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to kpatz
said by kpatz:
said by reub2000:
They can switch to DSL. I know speakeasy advertises that they don't block ports.
Not everyone can get DSL, or Speakeasy. I for one would love to see cable and DSL providers offer a "Power User" tier that allows servers (at least to an extent) and no port blocking, at maybe $5-10 higher than the standard residential service. Then those of us who want or need to use email servers other than the ISP's have a choice.
Many cable and DSL services already do offer such services. They just generally fall under the business or SOHO product names.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" |
|
| reply to wolfox
said by wolfox:
If anything, it would cost $LESS$. Think about it - without having to monitor, wave a big stick over your Internet experience, etc. Just leaving you alone does not cost any more dough...
Except for one gaping hole - what would stop a spammer/abuser from spending an extra few bucks and continue their abuse? If it were really that easy OOL could lower their costs for a higher net profit.
Business service is OOL's answer. No it is not cheap, but it provides a static IP that the subscriber can't change making it very easy to identify, track, and ultimately prevent abusers. Unfortunately providing the level of service BOOL offers incurrs additional costs, resulting in a higher subscription rate. |
|
budke
join:2003-07-22
Rye, NY | That's nice, but OOL doesn't offer static IPs (yet, but don't rule in out in the infinite future acording to them). They also do other filtering other than port 25 (inbound 53 for one, and the general inability to do srcprt 53 work. I'm sure there are others, but $40 more a month for the ability to send mail out on 25 and run a backup server on 25 on optonline isn't worth the price. |
|
