sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| reply to rchandra
Re: Verizon's is actually the more-sensible approach
said by rchandra:
As long as they leave my outbound TCP port 25 alone, that suits me (and I'm guessing you) just fine.  
Yeah, you and I will be fine but I am disturbed by what could be a trend. I don't know if you are familiar with the old ServTech out of Rochester (now owned by Verio) but they did their best to provide a good networking experience to even dialup users because they were a network supplier (till places like Kodak and others decided they could handle it on their own). Larger ISPs like AOL, MSN, Earthlink, Verizon, etc. have the power to really change the network experience by restricting services which most people will just live with because they don't know better or feel they can't do anything about. The ISPs can, or do have the power to make the expereince as bland as tv, as safe as tv or as simplified as USA Today. To me, the danger is in a gradual deterioration of the experience by picking away at small bits. (Shrug) That's what it's all about to me. quote:
Maybe not directly, but indirectly it does. If/when it works, the market can be a very powerful force indeed.
My problem with that is that the masses don't always know. The Internet now, and eventualy networking generaly, is being marketed to the masses and they are not knowledgable enough or experienced enough to truly judge. Everybody's first car was great because they just didn't know better. quote:
(born 7-Sep-1965).
You're just a kid! (5-12-56)
quote:
That's the one! Come to think of it, "The Man Show" would probably be pretty disgusting to many, but I don't watch that much...only the part that's on after something else I watch (used to be on after "South Park").
I prefer a good porn film.
quote:
BTW...I have to chuckle just about every time I pass by Southpark Ave., because almost every time, that theme starts running through my head.
For a number reasons, I cancelled my cable tv service and I shall miss SP (though I hear the full episodes are available on the network ) |
|
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| reply to sadowski
said by sadowski:
(I'm not, however, suggestting that they are planning to pull mail service or charge extra for.)
As long as they leave my outbound TCP port 25 alone, that suits me (and I'm guessing you) just fine.
said by sadowski:
quote:
If you and I (both Buffalo VZ subscribers) don't like their new SMTP policy, we can subscribe to Telerama for example instead.
But that's just more of that go back where you came from kind of thing. It doesn't address the approriateness of this kind of action.
Maybe not directly, but indirectly it does. If/when it works, the market can be a very powerful force indeed.
said by sadowski:
PBS has become very safe and very commercial oriented (in the sense that it has started pandering toward mass audience to facilitate donations). If you're old enough to remeber PBS in the seventies they were doing and showing original drama of substance, controversial political/social programs and science programming that had substance (not like what poor Nova has become now, or since they stopped buying Horizons and replacing the narration track with an American voice).
Nope, I wasn't too much of a PBS watcher back then. In the late sixties and early seventies, I was a "Sesame Street" and "Electric Company" viewer (born 7-Sep-1965).
said by sadowski:
quote:
I can think of a certain popular Comedy Central program that a lot of people think is quite objectionable (but I personally usually find hilarious).
I think show title "Everyone Loves Raymond" represents a lot TV marketing's mentality.
definitely.
said by sadowski:
Other than South Park...
That's the one! Come to think of it, "The Man Show" would probably be pretty disgusting to many, but I don't watch that much...only the part that's on after something else I watch (used to be on after "South Park").
BTW...I have to chuckle just about every time I pass by Southpark Ave., because almost every time, that theme starts running through my head.
--
Benjamin Franklin: Those who sacrifice freedom for a sense of security deserve neither. |
|
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| reply to rchandra
said by rchandra:
I think traffic that has no business on the Internet (e.g., with an RFC1918 source IP address) should be filtered out.
Private addresses, I think? I have no problem with that. I have no problem with any filtering done on technical grounds, if it pertains to the actual technical limits of the network (vs. too many users using porn sites so we block them because it wastes our bandwidth - a psuedo-technical argument).
quote:
As far as VZ providing services...they do provide mail,
There is also language on their website that suggests that they are not contractualy obligated to do so. I posted it in the Verizon forum a while back. (I'm not, however, suggestting that they are planning to pull mail service or charge extra for.) quote:
If you and I (both Buffalo VZ subscribers) don't like their new SMTP policy, we can subscribe to Telerama for example instead.
But that's just more of that go back where you came from kind of thing. It doesn't address the approriateness of this kind of action. quote:
I don't get the analogy to commercial TV. There is plenty on commercial TV that could be deemed offensive. The alternative would be PBS I'm guessing?
PBS has become very safe and very commercial oriented (in the sense that it has started pandering toward mass audience to facilitate donations). If you're old enough to remeber PBS in the seventies they were doing and showing original drama of substance, controversial political/social programs and science programming that had substance (not like what poor Nova has become now, or since they stopped buying Horizons and replacing the narration track with an American voice). So, no, I don't see PBS as much of an alternative anymore. quote:
If anything, I'd think that'd be more sanitized/cleaned than commercial TV. Also, if by "commercial TV" you would be willing to include satellite/cable programs, I can think of a certain popular Comedy Central program that a lot of people think is quite objectionable (but I personally usually find hilarious).
OK, my laziness. The commercial broadcast networks in which all is sanitized and made pallitable to some oddball marketers sensibility (or their distorted view of 'our' sensibilities) and where everything is faked and controlled for and by marketting. I think show title "Everyone Loves Raymond" represents a lot TV marketing's mentality.
Other than South Park and some of the old Sunday animation block (the transplated Duckman, Bob & Margaret, Dr. Katz) I don't know CC that well, but it is owned by MTV (isn't it?) which would make it an interesting study since MTV and the MTV Networks are pure marketing. |
|
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| reply to sadowski
I think you pretty much have this right, with an exception or two. I think traffic that has no business on the Internet (e.g., with an RFC1918 source IP address) should be filtered out. In this sense, ISPs have to cooperate to become the Internet police.
As far as VZ providing services...they do provide mail, and they hope that their pending change will win them more customers than they will lose. They appear to be playing the open market here. If you and I (both Buffalo VZ subscribers) don't like their new SMTP policy, we can subscribe to Telerama for example instead. I don't know of any out there, but there could be other hosting companies that would be willing to accept your mail, and if VZ start mangling tcp/25, also provide a VPN service so you can get at their [E]SMTP servers.
I don't get the analogy to commercial TV. There is plenty on commercial TV that could be deemed offensive. The alternative would be PBS I'm guessing? If anything, I'd think that'd be more sanitized/cleaned than commercial TV. Also, if by "commercial TV" you would be willing to include satellite/cable programs, I can think of a certain popular Comedy Central program that a lot of people think is quite objectionable (but I personally usually find hilarious).
(edit was to add anchor/link to RFC1918)
[text was edited by author 2001-07-03 11:20:58] |
|
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| reply to fhmiller5
said by fhmiller:
The mail server we use at work requires the ip address be one of it's [sic] own for sending. Therefore we can't send through it from home. If we used Verizon for home dsl we couldn't send work mail.
That simply means you haven't set up a mail server that can do this. Go to the Verizon thread and read about the various schemes, the most popular being authenticate-then-email (POP then [E]SMTP). Also, it sounds like you haven't thought about setting up VPN connections (which would put your home computer or network in the IP address space of your company).
If you're not willing to do either of these, it's not VZ's fault, it's the fault of your company.
--
Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. |
|
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| reply to justin
Sorry, I just don't agree that this should be done. Yes, I would agree that some customers use their broadband connection poorly this way. The solution ought to be to make these ex-customers more liable than simply cancellation of their account; part of the ToS that must be accepted before service is turned up should be a statement of cleanup charges that will be imposed should they participate in such activity, and therefore it will be more than just not paying $20/month.
I want a clean IP pipe to the Internet, devoid of any packet filtering or redirection, except for dropping illegitimate packets (for example, those with an RFC1918 source IP address). If you're worried about John Q. Spammer using his BB connection for that, employ tcp/25 traffic shaping, and if the customer wants better tcp/25 bandwidth, provision the account as a business connection.
--
Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. |
|
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| reply to richb01803
quote:
This forum itself is a way to send anonymous email: I get to express opinions here without having them directly traceable to my employer. That way I'm less inhibited, as are a number of the other regular contributors, so the issues are tackled much more directly.
Yes, this forum is a way to send anonymous email but the user has the choice whether or not they see the message using this method (either going to the site or not). Recipients of spam have no choice but to deal with the constant stream of unsolicited mail pouring into their computer.
As for your comment about a "re-think" of the internet's current method of mail delivery, that would be a great thing but what are users to do RIGHT NOW? Verizon customers that have their own domain names have been using the ISP's smtp server to send their mail because a lot of them do not want to set up their own mail servers and many of their hosts don't provide the ability to relay through their machines because of potential for abuse. Many hosting providers that I've seen simply provide pop3 mailboxes only. I know many people don't like Microsoft products but Exchange has the ability to restrict relaying via user authentication already as well as by ip. I personally prefer ip restrictions because it is too easy to impersonate a user not using secure password authentication due to the fact that user names and passwords for authentication are typically sent in plain text. Even if the ISP uses secure authentication, each and every user would have to use this configuration which means potential for more support calls due to incorrect client configurations. And not all clients support this method either. Bottom line is that for those who cannot send mail now, no matter how few, have a problem that will not be solved by a "re-think" of the current architecture. At least not soon enough for them of course. Many ISPs have attempted relay control via ip restrictions and for the most part it works. It's by no means a flawless process, but it does put a dent into the problem. 95% of the spam that has come across my inbox comes from mail servers that are open relays (no relay restrictions at all). I've verified many of them by sending messages to myself through their servers. If people running these servers would be kind enough to care about the rest of us on the net and close down these open relays, we'd see far fewer amounts of spam. |
|
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| reply to justin
said by justin:
ISPs all have subscriber agreements
That's not the same as blocking service access. If the ISP doesn't want to enforce its rules it should either not make them or it should suffer the consequences of not enforcing them. Blocking services is not a reasoned response to laziness or ineptitude.
quote:
the discussion has gone off topic though
I don't think so. This is where these types of actions take us. What ISPs do have consequences and set trends too. These issues need to be addressed. |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | reply to justin
Amen. |
|
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs: | reply to htin11
said by htin11:
as they say, go somewhere if you don't like what they offer.
Bring back slavery too then, eh? |
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| reply to dru
Well, maybe having the big ISPs implement really annoying restrictions will force the software companies to innovate and provide better email software.
Email's the #1 most popular application on the Internet, and it's been that way since the beginning.
Software vendors put their heads in the sand ages ago and decided that complying with a 20-year-old RFC with the likes of sendmail (world's buggiest program), Eudora and Outlook (world's least secure program) from now until eternity is a fine and acceptable state of affairs.
Well, I reiterate: email software as it stands today is "not well made". It's not up to the average 10-employee small business to come up with the answer to this problem; it's up to the well-heeled software vendors to do it. If not them, then perhaps the Linux freeware development community will take on this challenge (if for no other reason than to do an end run around SMTP port 25 when the ISPs gang up and block it).
I don't think the ISP managers are playing a good game of chess here. They'll bring worse problems on themselves by continuing these policies without also seeking long-term solutions in cooperation with the software development industry. |
|
htin11
join:2000-08-10
Flushing, NY
| reply to sadowski
actually read your TOS and your agreement, if the agreement say you can't run a server, then you can't do anything bout it...cuz it says DO NOT run a server...same thing with my road runner TOS. Thus you agreed upon not to run a server with the ISP...when you sign the contract or when you pay them. It all depend on the ISP...you choosed their services hence you are obligated by their runs...you don't have to pay them if you don't like their ways...as they say, go somewhere if you don't like what they offer. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to sadowski
ISPs all have subscriber agreements than clearly set out the penalties for sending out unsolicited email. They are obliged to enforce those penalties.. if they can't and won't enforce them, it would be a PR nightmare for them as a company, and subsequently a serious legal problem, as spammers (and criminal activity) flocked to the ISP that just provided an IP and didn't care what you use it for.
the discussion has gone off topic though - Verizon is trying to stop spam in a technically naive way.. that both hinders those with legitmate needs for their own domain name, yet does little to stop spam originating from their network. |
|
dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA
| reply to richb01803
What do you mean by, "not well made"? Just what SMTP security protocol have you seen implemented and standardized upon that deals with this issue?
SMTP was standardized when the internet was a trusting, open place. That's the problem. IMAP4 addresses these issues, but not universally supported by all client programs.
Obviously, software that runs on individual corporate servers could and should restrict incoming SMTP mail to originating headers, like what Verizon is implementing. But many do not offer this, and I believe that there is an issue with the appearance of being "open relay" to the current detection algorithms employed by such systems as ORBS and MAPS. So you still have to restrict via IP address, and this is difficult if you have traveling employees or those using dialup or dynamic IP service.
As for "not well made" commercial offerings including those from Microsoft, Eudora, and others do not provide many SMTP security features other than restriction by IP address. When asked, they claim such reasons as "RFC blah blah compliance" which of course means to be a fully compatible piece of software it has to interoperate with mail clients that hail from the days of Windows 3.1 Of course ISPs with the talent can modify and recompile smtp software to meet their needs, but the average small business doesn't possess this type of talent.
The biggest problem we have had recently is with business clients not intentionally abusing our servers or spamming themselves, but setting up servers for their own use but leaving them open to mail relay (the default configuration, out of the box for many server programs) and with the plethora of scanners and bots used by spammers to find open relays, they are discovered and exploited within a few hours. |
|
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
|  reply to justin
I don't want my ISP filtering anything. If I want to run my own servers then I should be able to. If I want talk to any other server I should be able to. If UCE and Bulk mail is a blight, then the spammers should be dealt with legaly on the level of their businesses, as well as servers set for customer (authorized) use only. I don't want an ISP deciding what is a "blight" such as adult content, political discussion, or even spam. Not to mention that we ALL KNOW that money will buy exceptions to all this filtering.
It's the ultimate hypocrisy to say that filtering (effective or otherwise) of what I don't like (spam) is OK but otherwise it's not.
I'm truly sick of hearing how ISPs should be turned into Internet police. The ISP should do nothing but provide connectivity and basic services to customers. If it doesn't want to provide basic services, such as mail and news, then it should not block those service either.
I suggest any of you really wanting such a bland and safe Internet stick to watching commercial television where you can be as safe and ignorant of anything potentialy offensive as you like. |
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| reply to fhmiller5
Why is that? Why can't your office email server be set up to relay your email?
Software which attempts to restrict access based on an IP address isn't well-made. It should have some other means of getting you to prove who you are.
However, I will grant you the point that today's email software has a lot of limitations which force folks to come up with all these bizarre kludges.
I don't think it's possible to barricate the 'net against spam so long as we're all merely trying to jam our pinky fingers in the dike. |
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| reply to justin
said by Justin:
Sending email with no accountability is a blight on the internet.
Well, I certainly can understand your position on this, but I think that there isn't any way to address the spam problem without a global re-think of email architecture.
Some form of authentication handshake will need to be implemented between mail servers, and between mail clients and mail relays, in order to address the spam problem once and for all.
I believe most people want two things:
(1) Email whose source can be verified; and
(2) The ability to send anonymous email as needed.
This forum itself is a way to send anonymous email: I get to express opinions here without having them directly traceable to my employer. That way I'm less inhibited, as are a number of the other regular contributors, so the issues are tackled much more directly.
But when setting up a personal mailbox, we tend to prefer that the source of incoming email can be verified--and blocked or stopped at the source if it's annoying or invasive.
I don't think ISPs are in a position to do anything other than help fund the R&D it takes to implement software to make this happen. Tweaking policies which limit the usefulness of today's software isn't going to solve the overall problem.
[text was edited by author 2001-07-02 11:09:29] |
|
fhmiller5
join:2000-01-23
Dobbs Ferry, NY
| reply to justin
The person that said they cannot think of why someone would disagree, isn't thinking very hard.
We are a small office any many of us work from home using our various connections. The mail server we use at work requires the ip address be one of it's own for sending. Therefore we can't send through it from home. If we used Verizon for home dsl we couldn't send work mail.
Fred |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to richb01803
Sending email with no accountability is a blight on the internet.. Earthlinks policy is great, because (without the policy) customers can send out massive amounts of spam email within hours, with the penalty being (at worse) cancellation of their $20 a month account.. forcing it to go through the earthlink servers, which are provided for the purpose of delivering legitimate email, is perfectly reasonable, and allows flood control.
If you think the earthlink servers are unreliable, tell them to fix them, or move to another provider.
If you care about privacy, encrypt your email.
Verizon on the other hand is continuing to allow anyone with a windows spam utility to flood mailboxes, yet their action blocks (many) people who have their own vanity domain names.. for no gain. It is easy for verizon technically to drop subscribers who flood their mail servers.. (regardless of From address) yet this policy does nothing to stop direct mail spammers.. who are the real criminals.
[text was edited by author 2001-07-02 10:57:42] |
|
