dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
71
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to drdroo

Member

to drdroo

Re: SMTP Blocks

I'm sure the answer is "no" because they aren't preventing specific competitors' mail services from working, and the spam and such that originates from an open port 25 means that closing it could be considered "reasonable network management"

drdroo
Premium Member
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME

drdroo

Premium Member

It's a 'lawful application or service' and not all ISPs block Port 25, only some. For instance, my cable ISP (Time Warner) does not in this market.

I do question whether blocks on inbound ports at the ISP level would also be considered permitted for the same reason. Running a web server on your residential connection isn't unlawful, but plenty of ISPs block it.

I won't be the only one to ask these questions I figure.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

"Reasonable netwrk management" is vague enough that nobody will have to do anything different from what they are doing now.
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

cornelius785 to iansltx

Member

to iansltx
Just to play devil's advocate... assuming you want to take the responsibility, wouldn't running your own mail server make you a competitor to your ISP's mail service?

drdroo
Premium Member
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME

1 recommendation

drdroo

Premium Member

You assume that all ISPs provide a mail service. Two of the local WISPs here do not provide e-mail in any form. I wouldn't be surprised if more people are pointed toward GMail in the future either.

My argument is that in a 'neutral' environment, I should be allowed to connect to any place on the Internet that is 'legal' to do so. The 'access provider' is supposed to be giving me pure unadulterated access to the Internet of some defined amount for a certain price. They're effectively 'blocking' access to the Internet in some form.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of spam that goes around on Port 25. At the same time, I'm sure there's plenty of questionable materials going around on Port 80. By blocking outgoing or incoming ports, though, they're not 'neutral'. The fact that only 'some' access providers block these things, and others do not, means that it isn't a 'norm' either.

I think the whole Net Neutrality thing is goofy anyway, but it seems they've not passed 'neutrality', they've passed some goofy rules about marketing. Perhaps I'm being myopic.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
said by iansltx:

"Reasonable netwrk management" is vague enough that nobody will have to do anything different from what they are doing now.

BINGO! So the question is.. what's with all the circus acts going on at the FCC these days? Going off of what Karl posted, alone, its safe to say "nothing to see here"..
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin to drdroo

Member

to drdroo
said by drdroo:

The 'access provider' is supposed to be giving me pure unadulterated access to the Internet of some defined amount for a certain price. They're effectively 'blocking' access to the Internet in some form.

Depends, if their TOS says you can't run a server, you can't run a server. People who run servers typically use a LOT more bandwidth that the "average" consumer, and they have the plans based on what the average consumer uses. Now if somehow enforceable laws do get written that state an ISP can't block servers, that will cause ISP's to either raise their rates to offset the additional usage, or implement metered billing so those who use more pay more.
said by drdroo:

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of spam that goes around on Port 25. At the same time, I'm sure there's plenty of questionable materials going around on Port 80.

Yes, but the difference is that many ISP's do run mail servers, and when spam comes from IP's allocated to them, it is basically the same as being on the fast lane to getting on the blacklist for all other mail servers, so it does cause real harm to communications. The whole email system is well overdue for a full revamp to tackle this type of problem, but there's just no good way to do it and keep backwards compatibility.