how-to block ads
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: Interesting quote in the linked article I think Steve's mistaken.
EVERYTHING a business does is in some sense meant "to kill your competition". From doing a good job, to contributing (publicly) to charity. Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts.
Now with VoIP blocking we have the slippery slope I first complained about with Port 25 blocking.
If we accept allowing ISP's to filter the kind of traffic they decide, we've ceded control of our Internet experience.
SMTP Relays are dangerous. Gone. Servers against TOS. Gone. P2P use is questionable. Gone. VoIP should come from US, not the other guys. GONE.
It is the same. If we don't hold our ISPs to being Internet Service Providers, they will all, inexorably, turn into AOL. And then we'll be safe.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|  RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 |  Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
| |
| 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| quote:
Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts.
They block it because the vast majority of people don't need it unblocked, and it has a high potential for abuse. Blame the abusers and trojan authors, not the ISP. The ISP would probably be more than happy to have its customers not consuming their mail server resources. The less people funneling their stuff through their SMTP server, the less resources it requires to run!
This is a service you're subscribing to. They don't even have to allow you to be able to accept an incoming connection on any port if they don't want you to. And for the most part, despite all the legalize in the TOS, the vast majority of ISPs look the other way when it comes to running services. They just want to have clauses in writing so that they can stop abuse if it becomes a problem. I expect the clampers to come down harder as competition drives the price of service down.
But yes, speak with your wallet, go with a company that allows the things you care about. That was one of the biggest reasons I chose to stick with DSLExtreme, despite the fact that I could have saved $15/month for the same speeds by switching to SBC. They explicitly allow me to run my personal services.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network | |
| 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by B  :I think Steve's mistaken. Curiously, Steve thinks he's not  Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts. Oh gasp, no way: ISPs hate the extra load on their mailservers that 25/tcp blocking requires - it increases their infrastructure costs, makes customers unhappy, etc. I think every one would rather not deal with it, but the spam problem has forced their hand.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
| | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: Interesting quote in the linked article If you get a chance, maybe you could walk me through the logic, because it never makes sense to me.
A. ISP 1's customers, or malware bots on their machines, start sending spam to thousands of people through open relays on OTHER networks run by OTHER ISPs, for example ISP 2.
B. The complaints start building, and eventually ISP 2 says to ISP 1, "hey, your customer is a spammer -- stop it".
C. ISP 1, rather than deal with the naughty customer, AND rather than telling ISP 2 "close your frickin' relay", decides to globally block port 25 and stop Joe Worker from using JoesCompany's mail server to send mail!
What is the incentive, economic or otherwise, for ISP 1 to block port 25? A sense of responsibility to the Internet culture? What? It certainly doesn't reduce spam coming IN to ISP 1's customers.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | |
|
