wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Deal with it..... I totally agree on blocking port 25 for basic user accounts. If you want to run a mail server, you should have to have a different account type. It is called accountability. This lets the ISP be more wary of who is running these types of servers without having to constantly scan their networks. for them.
Same goes for ICMP to some extent. Most basic users do not use it. So why not have an advanced tier for users who want the functionality. Just shut it down and only open it for users who want it, like they used to do with shell accounts.
Just deal with it. It will more than likely make life easier if it becomes adopted throughout the internet.
puritan |
|
 GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA | I have to agree with this post. It's difficult to argue interruption in certain types of uses when those uses are a violation of the TOS/AUP of the provider. Most of the mainstream providers prohibit serving, even mail servers and while inconvenient for those violating the TOS/AUP...they're still violating the TOS/AUP.
Providers that do permit serving like I think Speakeasy and Cyberonic do, if they started blocking those services I could agree with complaints.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
|
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY | reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:
I totally agree on blocking port 25 for basic user accounts. If you want to run a mail server, you should have to have a different account type. It is called accountability. This lets the ISP be more wary of who is running these types of servers without having to constantly scan their networks. for them.
Same goes for ICMP to some extent. Most basic users do not use it. So why not have an advanced tier for users who want the functionality. Just shut it down and only open it for users who want it, like they used to do with shell accounts.
Just deal with it. It will more than likely make life easier if it becomes adopted throughout the internet.
puritan
uhm, by blocking port 25 they are telling users they cannot use external PAY email services and they MUST use ISP provided account. thats absolutely ridiculous. |
|
GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA | Not necessarily, you just have to use your provider's SMTP server and you can have 3rd party email addy as the return addy, but you can still retreive incoming directly from the 3rd party news server.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | reply to plat2on1
said by plat2on1:
uhm, by blocking port 25 they are telling users they cannot use external PAY email services and they MUST use ISP provided account. thats absolutely ridiculous.
Bullsh*t... With Earthlink/Mindspring, who blocks outbound port 25, you can use any e-mail address, account, reply-to, etc, etc you want to. All you HAVE to use is smtp.earthlink.net, smtp.mindspring.com, or smtpauth.earthlink.net to SEND messages. What is the harm in that ?? |
|
GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA | Which was my point exactly. Problems can arise though if your provider's SMTP server sucks or you want your own header information.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | Honestly, how many *regular* users need their own header info ?? How many *regular* users know what the hell "headers" are ?? That's those things gearheads put on their cars that make 'em really loud, right ?? 
I don't know how a SMTP server can "suck" other than it being down. Any decent sized ISP will have redundant machines running SMTP though. |
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to GNXPower
said by GNXPower:
Not necessarily, you just have to use your provider's SMTP server and you can have 3rd party email addy as the return addy
Not if you use Verizon (unless they've changed recently...) 
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ |
|
roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to GNXPower
said by GNXPower:
Which was my point exactly. Problems can arise though if your provider's SMTP server sucks or you want your own header information.
You can add all the X-headers you want even if you have to use your ISP's mail server. (Among other things, you can run a "local" mail server and smarthost everything out the ISP's mail server. BT, DT.)
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ |
|
GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
2 edits | reply to roamer1
said by roamer1:
said by GNXPower:
Not necessarily, you just have to use your provider's SMTP server and you can have 3rd party email addy as the return addy
Not if you use Verizon (unless they've changed recently...)
-SC
Verizon doesn't block port 25. If they did, they would "probably" drop that authentication requirement and just go with standard user/pass authentication. Which is what Prodigy ended up doing before the Yahoo buyout.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to plat2on1
said by plat2on1:
said by wentlanc:
I totally agree on blocking port 25 for basic user accounts. If you want to run a mail server, you should have to have a different account type. It is called accountability. This lets the ISP be more wary of who is running these types of servers without having to constantly scan their networks. for them.
Same goes for ICMP to some extent. Most basic users do not use it. So why not have an advanced tier for users who want the functionality. Just shut it down and only open it for users who want it, like they used to do with shell accounts.
Just deal with it. It will more than likely make life easier if it becomes adopted throughout the internet.
puritan
uhm, by blocking port 25 they are telling users they cannot use external PAY email services and they MUST use ISP provided account. thats absolutely ridiculous.
If you're an SMTP service provider and you actually care about servicing customers, you set up SMTP listeners on alternate ports. That way, that segment of your potential customers who are port 25 blocked can still use your service. It's pretty trivial to PNAT at your SMTP network edge to redirect those external port numbers to the SMTP servers' real SMTP listener ports.
So, I don't see the problem, except for incompetent SMTP service providers and maybe for people that can't read instructions on how to configure their SMTP client software. And, I can feel absolutely zero pity for either group.
-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" |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | reply to GNXPower
What if your provider's SMTP server(s) is/are overloaded by the weekly Windoze worm? Then you are forced to wait for their overloaded server to deliver your email. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:
Same goes for ICMP to some extent. Most basic users do not use it. So why not have an advanced tier for users who want the functionality. Just shut it down and only open it for users who want it, like they used to do with shell accounts.
I have to disagree with this point... ICMP is used both by the user-land programs and the IP stack.
The IP stack uses ICMP for feedback from routers from "Destination Host Unreachable", etc. errors that are necessary to a properly functioning internet. It is in no way proper to make people pay extra to have standards compliant IP connection that won't flake out because ICMP is gone.
And even better, I remember being at a friend's house while they were troubleshooting their Cox connection. They had to call Cox and they said run ping and traceroute so they could get some metrics for the ticket. But guess what? Yep, they disabled a tool that would have been useful in fixing the users problem...
ICMP blocking is a totally different issue than blocking port 25.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
"A cardinal American virtue, 'ambition', promotes a cardinal American vice, 'deviant behaviour.'" |
|
GNXPowerGot Boost?Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to yabos
said by yabos:
What if your provider's SMTP server(s) is/are overloaded by the weekly Windoze worm? Then you are forced to wait for their overloaded server to deliver your email.
The whole point of widespread port 25 blocking is so that there isn't excess traffic created by worms.
--
Don't have it?!? Demand it!!! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY | reply to Hall
said by Hall:
said by plat2on1:
uhm, by blocking port 25 they are telling users they cannot use external PAY email services and they MUST use ISP provided account. thats absolutely ridiculous.
Bullsh*t... With Earthlink/Mindspring, who blocks outbound port 25, you can use any e-mail address, account, reply-to, etc, etc you want to. All you HAVE to use is smtp.earthlink.net, smtp.mindspring.com, or smtpauth.earthlink.net to SEND messages. What is the harm in that ??
wheres the harm in that? the whole point of using an external pay service is so you dont have to rely on your isp. |
|
| reply to Hall
SMTP servers can suck in lots of ways...dropped messages, messages that take a week or more to deliver(big issue when comcast was first on their own after @home died. It's better now...), not supporting SSL, etc etc.
Now back to the thing about 'regular' users. How many regular users are going to know to use smtp.comcast.net or whatever instead of the server they were told to use when they signed up for their third party e-mail account? And who are they gonna call? Comcast wouldn't be my first instinct...I would go bother the tech support of the third party e-mail. And probably not get very much help by doing so... |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | reply to GNXPower
That only works when the worm has it's own SMTP server. Most only use Outlook to send via the SMTP server set up in that program, which is almost always the ISP's server. Thus, it becomes overloaded. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to bmn
That's why I said to some extent. Most people do not use echo and echo reply at all.
puritan |
|
| reply to Hall
Hall, I used to post in the EL forum as an official Tech. There are always problems with EL servers, sometimes the routing can be messed up between two of them and it takes 10 hours for messages to go over an internal 100mbit connection from 1 server to another (sitting in the same room). There are lots of reasons why people want to be able to use an SMTP server from their own hosting provider.
#1. That way their email cant be logged by the ISP's email server.... (aside from the ISP sniffing their traffic, AKA Carnivore/DCS1000)
#2. Having mail server show up as "mail.mydomain.com" instead of *.earthlink.net
#3. Avoiding EarthLink's blacklist that happens all the time from auto mass-blacklisting spam lists.
I'm sure there are many more... I realize the hosting company can set up a mail server listening on a different port, but should every other company on the internet have to do something special because some isps are breaking standard port numbers?
This is how censorship starts. |
|
 cowboySo Much For SubtletyPremium
join:2000-03-14
Morgan Hill, CA | reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:
Same goes for ICMP to some extent. Most basic users do not use it. So why not have an advanced tier for users who want the functionality. Just shut it down and only open it for users who want it, like they used to do with shell accounts.
Bzzt... I've seen both (large) corporations, and ISPs who, in the panic, decide to block *all* ICMP! This means PMTU
no longer works, to connect, you have to ferret out and set
the MTU on your client box according, etc.
Yes, this is idiocy - but it is often done this way! Just like blocking outbound port 25, this means you can't use that free (or expensive) mail hosting account you bought unless they also open port 587 (or other ports) and educate the users one by one.
said by wentlanc:
Just deal with it. It will more than likely make life easier if it becomes adopted throughout the internet.
Yes, like the way it feels when you *quit* banging your head against the wall... Maybe there does need to be a multi-tierd ISP setup, but not just John/Jane Doe vs commercial ! I'd be happy to run my own mail/http/firewal, etc. but I am not a business, nor is my traffic high enough to warrant the expense
--
Richard Nelson |
|
