richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| Blocking port 25? Privacy invasion!
I for one would not want my email to flow through an ISP's mail server!
Forgetting the issue of how non-scalable most mail servers are, and therefore how prone to outages they are, do you really want all your email flowing through a Carnivore data-sucking attachment directly into the watchful eyes of a government or an ISP?
The folks in Beijing and Bhagdad must be clapping their hands in glee that even those of us in 'enlightened' countries are mere sheep who will accept any kind of privacy-threatening policy so long as the bureaucrats label it as something other than what it truly is. |
|
UhOkRight
@eclipse.net
| Ok, terrific.
You epitomize the tech support rep's worst nightmare... the user who kind of knows what he's doing but still messes stuff up and tells the horror stories about stuff he's heard on CNN or read on C|Net. |
|
drharry
join:2001-02-12
Hopatcong, NJ
| reply to richb01803
said by richb01803:
I for one would not want my email to flow through an ISP's mail server!
And how else did you expect to send email?
said by richb01803:
Forgetting the issue of how non-scalable most mail servers are, and therefore how prone to outages they are, do you really want all your email flowing through a Carnivore data-sucking attachment directly into the watchful eyes of a government or an ISP?...
It would appear you have no choice.
But ISP's blocking port 25 is old news. Earthlink has been doing this to former Netcom customers for well over two years now. |
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| said by drharry:
And how else did you expect to send email?
It goes directly from my Linux system to the recipient's SMTP server. It does not go through any email servers at my ISP (AT&T Broadband, or in the case of my workplace, Genuity) unless of course the recipient's mailbox is at that ISP. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
|  reply to drharry
said by drharry:
But ISP's blocking port 25 is old news. Earthlink has been doing this to former Netcom customers for well over two years now.
And they have had it implemented wrong for those two years. A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out. |
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| said by RARPSL:
said by drharry:
A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out.
Either way, it still forces all outbound SMTP traffic through an outage-prone, packet-sniffing-prone bottleneck. Ugh.
If this is the wave of the future I'm not too happy about that.
There are other ways to tackle the spam problem without this sledgehammer approach. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
|  said by richb01803:
said by RARPSL:
said by drharry:
A correctly implemented PORT25 block AUTOMATICALLY redirects all PORT25 requests to the blocking ISP's SMTP Server NOT (as Earthlink does) refuse to make the connection to a Non-ISP Server by just letting the connection attempt time out.
Either way, it still forces all outbound SMTP traffic through an outage-prone, packet-sniffing-prone bottleneck. Ugh.
If this is the wave of the future I'm not too happy about that.
There are other ways to tackle the spam problem without this sledgehammer approach.
I agree. As for PORT25 blocking, how hard is it to have the ISP (when it gets the "CONNECT ME TO ISPX's SMTP SERVER" request) do its own connect to the server and see if it offers a AUTH response to the EHLO (then just drop the connection via QUIT)? Such a response could then trigger a "Let the user get his connection" action since the SMTP server can be considered as "SPAM LOCKED DOWN" and acceptable as a connection target. |
|
dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA
| reply to richb01803
Some of your fears and paranoia are misplaced.
As far as Carnivore, your this is a Clinton-era dream that has yet to pass through serious legal tests. To think that ISPs have welcomed or supported Carnivore is absurd. As an ISP, I can tell you that not only is there no Carnivore present on our network, the DOJ or anyone else has yet to ever approach us or any other ISP I know with the legal documents and court orders, and we would require substantial review before we would allow them to proceed. Apparently, they have to compensate the ISP T&M for any investigation, and that is probably never going to be practical when it would be easier to wiretap the client under investigation's phone or broadband. We would fight in court as long as clients, NOT under investigation, could have their privacy breached through the Carnivore implementation. Any use of Carnivore would have to be focused/targeted on a suspected individual. Despite the rampant concerns about Big Brother Snooping on You, the main threat was through inadvertent discovery, for example, if an agent tapping a suspected child pornographer comes across drug peddling by someone else, would that info be admissible or even be able to initiate an investigation? My guess is NO, it would NEVER pass constitutional law.
Secondly, as far as privacy is concerned, ISPs act as carriers. We SO MUCH do not want to ever see ANY of your email because that puts ISPs into a type of legal "publisher" mode. We simply send it, just as the phone companies complete calls without monitoring the connections for the same reason. Crime occurs all the time, but we don't want the responsibility of having any information that might require reporting to authorities. It could also make ISPs third parties to wife cheating cases, porno via email, solicitation to commit fraud, etc. Trust me, the microsecond we have confirmation your email is delivered to its destination, it's permanently deleted and we do NOT keep copies!
While there are all sorts of urban legends about AOL and other large ISPs trolling their clients computers and email boxes for anti-AOL rhetoric, complaints, etc, they are just stories. While there might be isolated incidents of snoopy employees watching what goes by, for the most part, it's just speculation.
The exception is mail transfer logs. We do log your mail activity (not the content) to ensure you are not spamming through our network, but also to verify that you are not. We have to keep these logs, because IP and mailbox headers can be forged. Best way to screw with a buddy (in the Sam Kennison definition of "buddies") - send out a bunch of er, organ enlargement ads under his IP and mail address, and watch the wrath of various entities come down, meanwhile, he says "HUH?" as cleanup fees hit his credit card. Ha Ha, I've seen it done!
If you want to be concerned about mail privacy - be worried about your employer and sending email out on the company server. In the issue of employer-servers and their employees with regards to using company resources, employers have prevailed in many of the cases to the point where there is no implied privacy when you are on the job. They can and do watch what you do. |
|
whybother8
join:2001-06-07
London, ON
| reply to richb01803
Why is this even an issue? Focus should be on the fact that Verizon made a gross error right from the beginning. Why was such a big mistake allowed to continue for so long? The best thing that Verizon could have done was admit that their system was lacking in any kind of security right from the get-go, apologize, and fix it.
Unless you pay for hosting, NO-ONE allows others to access their servers. This is why we all have different "handles"...@home.com;@verizon.net;@whatever.org...all are different domains and the extension tells us who has rights to what. Usually, only those who pay have the rights. The fact that verizon customers have not had to worry about this before now should in it's self be worrisome. That means that the potential for trouble has been a hackers dream from the beginning.
The ONLY Verizon customers that will be affected are those who have, for some strange reason, been allowed to host their own domains (for free) for all of this time. They simply need to pay someone to provide web hosting for them, and they will pay for it, and life can continue on as usual. They now have to pay for a service that they have been getting for free all this time.
Different companies employ different methods, but they all do it. Get out of the dark. ha-ha-ha 
--
Unless you play by the rules, why bother to complain? |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
|  said by whybother:
Unless you pay for hosting, NO-ONE allows others to access their servers. This is why we all have different "handles"...@home.com;@verizon.net;@whatever.org...all are different domains and the extension tells us who has rights to what. Usually, only those who pay have the rights.
As I've noted before, Verizon is NOT allowing unrestricted SMTP Server access to their customers for Verizon Email even though, to quote you, "They have Paid for it".
Right now, I can only use the Verizon Servers to send my Verizon Email IF I am at that time using Verizon Connectivity (ie: A Verizon ADSL Line or a Verizon POTS/ISDN dial-Up Gateway). If I want to send mail over that line from my example.com account, I am told by Verizon to connect to an example.com SMTP Server. I can accept this. The problem is that when I use example.com (or some other ISP's) connectivity, and try to access the Verizon SMTP Server to send my Verizon Email (as Verizon wants me to do for non-Verizon Email when using THEIR Connectivity), I'm refused access THAT I HAVE PAID FOR due to Verizon's refusal to offer SMTP AUTH (POP BEFORE SMTP or POP XTND XMIT) as a way to bypass the "DROP DEAD - YOU'RE NOT ON OUR LAN" Rules for access to the SMTP Server. |
|
whybother8
join:2001-06-07
London, ON
| That's what they want. Take the business elsewhere and really teach them a lesson. Before you sign up though, read your TOS this time. Ask them directly if you can use their server for your uses, get it in writing.
--
Unless you play by the rules, why bother to complain? |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
|  said by whybother:
That's what they want. Take the business elsewhere and really teach them a lesson. Before you sign up though, read your TOS this time. Ask them directly if you can use their server for your uses, get it in writing.
This is not the case since the Verizon (really BANET since they later force moved me to Verizon.Net when they shut down BANET.NET) TOS when I signed up ALLOWED me to send Email no matter what the From Address was. Even if I am allowed to do so at Sign-Up time, the other ISP can pull a Verizon later. Note that I am not addressing if Verizon should have the ability to refuse to relay my Email if I do not use my Verizon Account Address in the From. I am addressing the issue of Verizon REFUSING to accept my Verizon Email when I am not using Verizon Connectivity EVEN THOUGH their policy on my sending NON-Verizon Email when using Verizon connectivity is "Use THEIR Server". Thus they are unwilling to follow their own STATED rules (ie: I can not "Use THEIR [ie: Verizon's] Server" when not connected to the Verizon Network). |
|
