| Punish everyone else because of a few people So cable companies are going to punish everyone else because of a few bad apples? Why not monitor the layer 2 and block the MAC if the person is sending 100 email through port 25 in a 24hrs period? This is very easy to do. I fact that is what I do with my company's firewall. If we get hit with email viruses, I can tell where it's comes from and block it at the firewall. Come on people, start thinking out of the box!! |
|
 RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | said by Wildcards2000:
So cable companies are going to punish everyone else because of a few bad apples? Why not monitor the layer 2 and block the MAC if the person is sending 100 email through port 25 in a 24hrs period? This is very easy to do. I fact that is what I do with my company's firewall. If we get hit with email viruses, I can tell where it's comes from and block it at the firewall. Come on people, start thinking out of the box!!
That may be very easy for you to do, but it's not the simplest thing when you have millions of customers. Your company's pf box or Cisco probably doesn't scale that high.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
|
|
 jaaPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2 | reply to Wildcards2000
It is not punishment. They should just use a port different than 25 - is that too much to ask? |
|
| reply to Rhobite
"That may be very easy for you to do, but it's not the simplest thing when you have millions of customers."
It's very easy to do. It doesn't matter how many people you have.  |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | said by Wildcards2000:
It's very easy to do. It doesn't matter how many people you have.
No, it really isn't. Your solution, whatever it may be, probably doesn't scale.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
 visio
join:2001-08-29
Pompano Beach, FL | reply to Rhobite
If CV/OOL has the ability to cap a specific user, after their systems determine that specific user is 'abusing' upload bandwidth, im sure they have the ability to track specific users who are mass-mailing out of port 25. |
|
| reply to Wildcards2000
said by Wildcards2000:
Why not monitor the layer 2 and block the MAC if the person is sending 100 email through port 25 in a 24hrs period?
My ISP does something similar. If they detect a large amount of outgoing mail, the modem's configuration file is changed to one that blocks outbound e-mail, and the modem is rebooted. That way, the customer loses all access to e-mail, and has to call in. Then when they call in, they're told why they're blocked, and that they need to clean up their system. |
|
| reply to Wildcards2000
I am the league webmaster for a local youth baseball leauge and I probably have around 1,100 email addresses that we use to communicate to parents when we have something important to say (Spring and Fall Registrations, all fields are closed because of rain, etc.).
It has become almost impossible for me to communicate with parents because ISP's have restricted things down so much. I've contacted the ISP's directly to let them know that I'm sending 1,100 emails with permission, but to no avail. Unfortunately, it's the kids (and their parents) that get hurt because of these restrictions... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by NeilB:
I am the league webmaster for a local youth baseball leauge and I probably have around 1,100 email addresses that we use to communicate to parents when we have something important to say (Spring and Fall Registrations, all fields are closed because of rain, etc.).
It has become almost impossible for me to communicate with parents because ISP's have restricted things down so much. I've contacted the ISP's directly to let them know that I'm sending 1,100 emails with permission, but to no avail. Unfortunately, it's the kids (and their parents) that get hurt because of these restrictions...
If your complaining about it because you send emails from a personal residential account then, Ever hear of server hosting? If your sending that much mail from a personal account then your in violation of the TOS. Go buy a cheap web hosting package and put it there and email from there. No matter what your justification there is no reason you should be sending that much mail from a personal account.
If your complaining about the blocking then, The way they are blocking does not prevent mail from coming in had they used the right port. If they used the correct port in the first place then it wouldn't be an issue.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | said by BosstonesOwn:
If your sending that much mail from a personal account then your in violation of the TOS. Go buy a cheap web hosting package and put it there and email from there. No matter what your justification there is no reason you should be sending that much mail from a personal account.
What? I don't know any ISP that would consider 1000 e-mails to personal contacts a TOS violation. Some people run mailing lists, you know. While the original poster would definitely get better results with Yahoo Groups or Topica, I don't see how 1000 non-spam emails could possibly be network abuse. How come it's okay to send gigabytes of files to friends and IM with hundreds of people, but suddenly e-mails to people you know are against the rules?
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Rhobite:
said by BosstonesOwn:
If your sending that much mail from a personal account then your in violation of the TOS. Go buy a cheap web hosting package and put it there and email from there. No matter what your justification there is no reason you should be sending that much mail from a personal account.
What? I don't know any ISP that would consider 1000 e-mails to personal contacts a TOS violation. Some people run mailing lists, you know. While the original poster would definitely get better results with Yahoo Groups or Topica, I don't see how 1000 non-spam emails could possibly be network abuse. How come it's okay to send gigabytes of files to friends and IM with hundreds of people, but suddenly e-mails to people you know are against the rules?
If your mass mailing using a MAIL SERVER for a newsletter which is the way many do it. That is a server and against the TOS if they are doing it by hand then they should be allowed to send them.
It's not right to send gigs of files to friends. And transfers like that should be shot down as well. But If you care to do a little investigation into this wonderful world wide web we have , you would see most traffic is either pirated software/mp3's or spam. We eliminate the spammers we free up network resources.
Then next we work on the Pirated software and mp3's. Since that tends to be more difficult then shutting down zombied spammers and worm hosts. |
|
1 edit | reply to visio
said by visio:
If CV/OOL has the ability to cap a specific user, after their systems determine that specific user is 'abusing' upload bandwidth, im sure they have the ability to track specific users who are mass-mailing out of port 25.
Not quite.
DOCSIS 1.1 compliant cable modems (OOL uses these) must support QOS, including maximum bandwidth and burst rates.
DOCSIS 1.1 also specifically states that compliant cable modems must not apply LLC filters "outbound".
In other words, caps are applied at the individual cable modems (easy to do), but MAC filtering can not be. |
|
| reply to Rhobite
said by Rhobite:
What? I don't know any ISP that would consider 1000 e-mails to personal contacts a TOS violation. Some people run mailing lists, you know.
Actually, most ISPs would consider a mailling list under the category of "server", which in the case of OOL violates the TOS.
The problem is that OOL has let people "bend" the TOS and as abuse increases and OOL begins to enforce the rules, people are complaining.
On the other hand, as major ISPs (such as OOL) have entire netblocks become blocked by other ISPs and corporations due to abuse by their customers they get hammered by customers and critics for not being more pro-active.
Face it. Inbound SMTP has always been a violation of the TOS. OOL isn't blocking outbound email but rather forcing their customers to use OOLs mail relays in an effort to reduce the abuse. I'm not agreeing with this, but as others have already pointed out OOL is catching up to what other ISPs have been doing for quite some time. |
|
| reply to Wildcards2000
said by Wildcards2000:
"That may be very easy for you to do, but it's not the simplest thing when you have millions of customers."
It's very easy to do. It doesn't matter how many people you have.
No, it is not very easy to do.
DOCSIS 1.1 specifically prohibits this being done at the CM or CMTS for "outbound" traffic. Once traffic passes through the CMTS, layer 2 information changes. So, it really isn't easy to do at all.
Now, DOCSIS 1.1 does require compliant cable modems to support a minimum of 16 IP filters. The problem then becomes identifying offenders, which is where forcing the use of OOL's own mail relays comes in.
If you don't understand the technology you can't make assumptions about it. Data Over Cable isn't even close to your corporate ethernet network. |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:
If your mass mailing using a MAIL SERVER for a newsletter which is the way many do it. That is a server and against the TOS if they are doing it by hand then they should be allowed to send them.
It's not right to send gigs of files to friends. And transfers like that should be shot down as well. But If you care to do a little investigation into this wonderful world wide web we have , you would see most traffic is either pirated software/mp3's or spam. We eliminate the spammers we free up network resources.
Then next we work on the Pirated software and mp3's. Since that tends to be more difficult then shutting down zombied spammers and worm hosts.
This defies logic. How is it considered a server if you have software that SENDS e-mail? It initiates connections, it never accepts connections from the outside. Just because it's an MTA does not mean you're breaking any rules. As long as it doesn't listen on port 25 you're clear. I'll say it again, sending thousands of e-mails to people you know is in no way spam.
It's not right to send gigs of files? Sorry, I didn't know you were the judge of the Internet. In reality, that's exactly what broadband is good for. Most ISPs have no upload cap or a very large upload cap.. so if I come in under that, who are you to tell me that I'm abusing the network? Mind your own business. I have gigs of photos I've taken, and I'll send 'em to anyone I want to.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
| said by Rhobite:
This defies logic. How is it considered a server if you have software that SENDS e-mail?It initiates connections, it never accepts connections from the outside.
Historically, mail lists have fallen under the category of "service" or "server". A server does not in fact need to listen on any network ports and ISPs such as OOL are very carefull not to define "server" with too much detail.
quote:
I'll say it again, sending thousands of e-mails to people you know is in no way spam.
And who is to be the judge of this? Should OOL simply trust users to claim "Oh - I'm not sending spam. I really do have 1000 friends that I regularly mass-email". What's to stop a Spammer from making the same claim? How should OOL determine which claims are legitimate and which are not?
As another example - you have 500 of those friends using AOL. You happen to send a mass email. AOL flags 500 messages inbound to its network from a single IP in a short amount of time and notifies OOL that it will block the entire netblock since it is identified as being a dynamically-allocated range.
BTW: This is one reason OOL wants users to switch to Business service - you are allocated one or more static IPs and you can't change them. OOL along with other ISPs can uniquely identify you and you can't get around it. With standard OOL service I can easily force my IP to change (and no I will not explain how. True experts will already know) to avoid detection or blocks.
quote:
Most ISPs have no upload cap or a very large upload cap.. so if I come in under that, who are you to tell me that I'm abusing the network? Mind your own business. I have gigs of photos I've taken, and I'll send 'em to anyone I want to.
First, it is clear you don't have a clue how cable modems work. It is thinking like this that got OOL to start enforcing caps in the first place. Data-Over-Cable is an assymetric service - it is designed to maximize download speads and is not meant for uploading significant amounts of data. Period. Believe it or not when just a single user approaches upload rates of 1Mbps all other users on that CMTS will be affected in both uploads and downloads. Now, when you are the one doing the uploading you'll scream and cry that it is your bandwidth and you have a right to use it any way you want. On the other hand, when someone else is doing this and your speeds begin to crawl you'll be the first to go crying to OOL that your service is terrible and OOL needs to fix it.
Access to the internet, its use, and broadband connectivity to it are not rights. They are all priveleges that you pay for. By subscribing to the service you are agreeing to the Terms of Service. If you don't like the TOS you are free to cancel the service and find another provider. |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
3 edits | I don't argue with people who insist on resorting to personal insults. I will say that if your cable modem truly suffers whenever anyone else uploads, perhaps you should switch to a real broadband technology such as DSL. I have had cable modems and never encountered the "congestion" you speak of. If yours is so inadequate, I recommend switching to a better technology rather than taking it out on other people who want to use their Internet connection. Sorry, I can't take it seriously when people say that I shouldn't be allowed to use my Internet connection for its exact intended purpose. |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
I do use server hosting for both web and email. I've used a PC-based tool for many years called, GroupMail (from Infacta) to send out our league-wide emails. It has features that allow for parents to automatically subscribe and unsubscribe and handles "bounces" for me. It gives me more control versus a Yahoo group, for example.
So why am I such a bad guy for paying for hosting, client software, using a strictly permission-based email list, and I can't communicate to my list of 1,100 baseball families? I pay to have server hosting; is it too much to expect that I can use the email server for outbound SMTP traffic to handle my emails?
-Neil |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | said by NeilB:
I do use server hosting for both web and email. I've used a PC-based tool for many years called, GroupMail (from Infacta) to send out our league-wide emails. It has features that allow for parents to automatically subscribe and unsubscribe and handles "bounces" for me. It gives me more control versus a Yahoo group, for example.
So why am I such a bad guy for paying for hosting, client software, using a strictly permission-based email list, and I can't communicate to my list of 1,100 baseball families? I pay to have server hosting; is it too much to expect that I can use the email server for outbound SMTP traffic to handle my emails?
-Neil
Don't worry, you're doing nothing wrong. A certain segment here loves to take a holier-than-thou position and pretend that they are the sole judges of what constitutes acceptable Internet use.
Might I suggest using Yahoo Groups, Topica, or switching to a hosting provider who provides a mailing list package? You'd get better results from that than from relaying SMTP through your ISP's server.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
| reply to Rhobite
said by Rhobite:
I don't argue with people who insist on resorting to personal insults.
Where was the personal insult? It seems pretty clear you don't understand how Data-Over-Cable works based on the comments you've made.
quote:
I will say that if your cable modem truly suffers whenever anyone else uploads, perhaps you should switch to a real broadband technology such as DSL.
It is not when anyone else uploads. It is when others abuse their bandwidth. There's a big difference. Users that abuse their bandwidth have caps enforced to keep them from affecting others so drastically. This is fact.
quote:
I have had cable modems and never encountered the "congestion" you speak of. If yours is so inadequate, I recommend switching to a better technology rather than taking it out on other people who want to use their Internet connection.
Where are you pulling this out of? You claimed the bandwidth was yours to do with as you please. This is absolutely wrong when dealing with Data-Over-Cable. I pointed out how this is wrong and you twisted it around to suit you. I stated facts about the technology and you somehow read that I had problems? Please, do not "read into" my words with your own interpretation or put words in my mouth.
quote:
Sorry, I can't take it seriously when people say that I shouldn't be allowed to use my Internet connection for its exact intended purpose.
I never claimed that. There are far too many misconceptions over the intended purpose. Those that abuse the service get capped. Ignoring the TOS is not an excuse. Nor is making claims about a technology that are blatantly false. These issues are not unique to OOL and in fact OOL has been far more fair in their policies than other Data-Over-Cable providers.
Again - if you want to comment on the technology then you should have a basic understanding of how it works. If you want to comment on a service then you should understand the terms of using that service.
You claimed the bandwidth was yours to use entirely as you feel. With a cable modem this is not the case, regardles of who your provider is. This is the technology - your bandwidth is shared. Period.
I'm not making any statements about what I experience or not. I'm stating facts about the technology. If you have any doubts try doing some simple searching - the topic has even been discussed in DSLR (BBR) many times over.
Cable modems were designed for high-bandwith downloads, which is the direction of majority of traffic for client applications. I just want to make this clear - it is the misconception that cable modems were designed for full symmetric bandwitch that continually brings around so many rants over how bad OOL is. If you want symmetric service move to sDSL, ISDN, E1 or T1 service and please stop whining about OOL. |
|
