 fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| I don't see the problem "Some claim this less common tactic is usually done to prevent users from running a mail server; forcing them to upgrade to a more substantive business account for the privilege. "
So what's the problem? Running a mail server is not "typical residential use" and is something more typically seen in business.
I don't see a problem with this if it's cutting down on spam.. and simply enough, the network is the property of the ISP and if they want to block inbound 25, then that's the way it is. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|  |  ke4pym
join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I don't see the problem said by fiberguy :I don't see a problem with this if it's cutting down on spam.. and simply enough, the network is the property of the ISP and if they want to block inbound 25, then that's the way it is. Well, see, here's the rub. While the network may be the property of the ISP, my monthly subscriptions help pay for their bills. If they're going to make a change on the network I pay for, then I expect them to, at the very least, tell me there's been a degredation in my service. Especially if it is something I've been using for 10 years.
Then the ball is in my court to stick with it, pay for a higher tier (which is crazy) or find a new ISP.
I'd expect the same notification that channels are being deleted from my TV lineup.
How would you like coming home and finding a quarter of the channels you love gone - and oh, by the way, they didn't drop the price you were paying for...
Oh, and they should probably not use "Unlimited" -anywhere- in their marketing if they're limiting the ports you can, and cannot use, too. | |
|  |  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I don't see the problem said by ke4pym :How would you like coming home and finding a quarter of the channels you love gone - and oh, by the way, they didn't drop the price you were paying for... You forgot the second part of that equation: You can have the channels back if you convert to a "professional" rate at twice the cost, which gets you back to where you were in the first place.
Cable math, you know. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Here is the rub back.. you were never allowed to run a public server on their network to begin with.. so where was your service degraded?
And, if you say that it was, at one time, allowed, then you need to pay attention to the terms of service updates that you get from time to time that you agreed to pay attention to.
But since you are in Charlotte, NC and have Time Warner Cable, I don't see how this issue in Comcast is related to you anyway. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|  |  |  |  ke4pym
join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I don't see the problem said by fiberguy :But since you are in Charlotte, NC and have Time Warner Cable, I don't see how this issue in Comcast is related to you anyway. Maybe because this thread is in on the front page of this site and not in a Comcast dedicated forum? | |
|  |  |  |  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 | Re: I don't see the problem Don't bother. To him, facts are a nuisance. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   phattieg
join:2001-04-29 Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: I don't see the problem said by RadioDoc :Don't bother. To him, facts are a nuisance. Umm, the shoe fits... Wear it real good... The point made is a good one. In the TOS, you are not permitted to use one. Back in 2000, when TWC shut down port 25 on me, I read the TOS before I called, and found I had no grounds to complain. I honestly wish that Comcast would disconnect customers who called up complaining that "their server" is not accepting outside connections, which is a blatent violation of the TOS. It would be great saying "I'm sorry if you don't read that junk (TOS), maybe you should before you call up yelling at us about YOUR server". I have violated the TOS, in a couple of ways, but I wouldn't go ballistic if I had some port blocks in place, simply because there is other ways around it. The open minded person keeps their service.
Reply all you want, but until you can HONESTLY respect the fact that it is the ISP's network, not yours, even if you pay $1 million a month, its not yours, and you have a TOS still stuck to it. TOS is like the law, they can let ya slide, but if it comes down to it, you can be locked down too. -- SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by fiberguy :So what's the problem? Running a mail server is not "typical residential use" and is something more typically seen in business. There is no reason why that should be so. Of course, if it is against the ISP AUP/TOS to run a mail server, blocking inbound port 25 does facilitate enforcement. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: I don't see the problem You are right in both senses.. HOWEVER, there are a lot of residential users, that because they don't know what they are doing, they are running open relays which does cause a problem for the network.
The way I see it.. these residential ISPs have a couple of options..
1) Block the use - most do.
2) Block port 25 by default but allow it to be opened upon request and only if they scan and test the port for open relays - REGULARLY. I'd also see a fair fee to unblock the port for the time they have to put into administering the program.. since it's a residential service, they aren't in the business of performing duties that they would normally do on the business side to which they would most certainly charge for.
3) Block when a complaint is issued.
I do agree that mail servers are harmless, for the most part. The same amount of mail is going to go out, typically, if they were to use the ISP's mail server UNLESS they are allowing others to use that same server in which I'd support the ISP to block. -- "Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't see the problem said by fiberguy :You are right in both senses.. HOWEVER, there are a lot of residential users, that because they don't know what they are doing, they are running open relays which does cause a problem for the network. I see a lot of connection attempts to my server from Comcast residential IP address space. And I get a lot of 'bot spam to my ISP mail account from Comcast residential IP address space. I have yet to see an open relay in that mix.
The way I see it.. these residential ISPs have a couple of options..
1) Block the use - most do.
2) Block port 25 by default but allow it to be opened upon request and only if they scan and test the port for open relays - REGULARLY. I'd also see a fair fee to unblock the port for the time they have to put into administering the program.. since it's a residential service, they aren't in the business of performing duties that they would normally do on the business side to which they would most certainly charge for.
3) Block when a complaint is issued.
I do agree that mail servers are harmless, for the most part. The same amount of mail is going to go out, typically, if they were to use the ISP's mail server UNLESS they are allowing others to use that same server in which I'd support the ISP to block. Those are good steps for ISPs to follow. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   powned
@charter.com
| I see plenty of of problem, I don't run a mail server, however, I would like to connect to an external mail provider for my domain using Outlook rather than theeir webmail interface. That requires 25/110 ports to be accessible through the ISP network. Knology is also doing this, so Comcast is not the only one.
All one asks for is that the terms of service be clearly stated. Saying that you cannot run a mail server does not cover my above stated problem.
So byte me | |
|  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't see the problem said by powned :
I see plenty of of problem, I don't run a mail server, however, I would like to connect to an external mail provider for my domain using Outlook rather than theeir webmail interface. That requires 25/110 ports to be accessible through the ISP network. Knology is also doing this, so Comcast is not the only one. Where is it written in stone that you must have access to outbound port 25 to use email?
I use:
smtp.aim.com smtp.aol.com smtp.gmail.com smtp.gmx.net smtp.mail.yahoo.co.jp smtp.mail.yahoo.com smtp.mail.yahoo.com.au smtp.myrealbox.net
None of them require outbound port 25. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |   McDonuts
@nctv.com | 110 is still open, so you can receive e-mail as usual. And you just have to change your SMTP to Comcast's server (smtp.comcast.net), and it will relay it for you. I helped my friend do that this morning for his company's domain. | |
|  |  |  |   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: I don't see the problem said by McDonuts :
110 is still open, so you can receive e-mail as usual. And you just have to change your SMTP to Comcast's server (smtp.comcast.net), and it will relay it for you. I helped my friend do that this morning for his company's domain. port 110 has nothing to do with receiving mail. All it has to do with is being able to download email (while sending your login credentials in cleartext - hooray!). -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|  |  |   phattieg
join:2001-04-29 Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by powned :
I see plenty of of problem, I don't run a mail server, however, I would like to connect to an external mail provider for my domain using Outlook rather than theeir webmail interface. That requires 25/110 ports to be accessible through the ISP network. Knology is also doing this, so Comcast is not the only one.
All one asks for is that the terms of service be clearly stated. Saying that you cannot run a mail server does not cover my above stated problem.
So byte me Well, port 25 when used on YOUR computer, is for OUTBOUND communication from YOUR machine to THE WORLD. What you're saying has nothing to do with this. You can still SEND mail. Comcast just won't let an outside connection connect to your port 25. So if you made a mail server, and then tried to setup Outlook Express at another persons house so you could send mail, you would get a "timeout" error in Outlook Express, because Comcast would block you from reaching your machine via port 25.. -- SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't see the problem said by phattieg :Well, port 25 when used on YOUR computer, is for OUTBOUND communication from YOUR machine to THE WORLD. What you're saying has nothing to do with this. You can still SEND mail. Comcast just won't let an outside connection connect to your port 25. So if you made a mail server, and then tried to setup Outlook Express at another persons house so you could send mail, you would get a "timeout" error in Outlook Express, because Comcast would block you from reaching your machine via port 25.. Port 25 is for "mail transport". What you are describing is "message submission". For a long time, ISPs, and mail clients, were set up to use port 25 for "message submission". But it is becoming clear that email service providers need to implement a "message submission" port.
Look up RFC 2476. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't see the problem said by devicemanage :My isp has actually blcoked port 25 and now authentication is required on 587 - I think they have me locked down pretty tight. Is there any way around this? Why is authenticating on port 587 a problem? That is the way of the future.
But, no. There is no way around it. If your ISP won't let you use port 25 outbound, you would have to hack their network. Surely that is forbidden. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  atom_man
join:2007-02-13 m5a2b4
| If residential subscribers arent allowed to run services, why are they only stopping at blocking port 25? If you eliminate everything that requires more then just a client.. What incoming ports does a residential subscriber really need? Sure.. residential users wouldnt able to connect to their Fax machines, VPNs, Remote desktops, linux boxes, SQLs, X Servers, Sling Boxes, accept incoming calls and wont be able to host computer games
But if they have a problem with that, why should they complain? Isnt it their own fault for trying to do such things in the first place?
My point is that game servers, communications servers, file servers, database servers and web servers are part of everyday residential use. Telling your customer to go by a blade server and co-host it somewhere is rather silly, and very expensive. (100$/month for co-host, 50$/month for cable) so a user can access their sling box from work?
Having a ToS that says "not allowed to run servers" is almost like another ToS Ive seen which says not allowed to connect to remote systems. After all, what good is the internet is if you cant connect to remote systems? | |
|  plat2on1
join:2002-08-21 Hopewell Junction, NY clubs: | does one unconfirmed report really warrant a front page news article? | |
|  |   RideRed Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista Premium join:2005-06-18 USA 1 edit | Re: does Just thinking the same thing. Must be a slow news day and Karl ran out of Bush sucks articles. | |
|  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | We're always looking for contributions if the selection isn't to your liking. | |
|   battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000 | It's about damn time. This will lead to support calls from my hosted customers but it's about damn time Comcast did something. Just have users switch to port 587 or use smtp.comcast.net as the outgoing mail server. | |
|   tenpin784 I Went To The Dark Side?
join:2001-03-30 New Durham, NH
| Makes sense On a residential account, I think they should block 25, cause most users think they know what they are doing, then they end up misconfiguring, next thing you know, bam, open relay.
This goes along the lines of blocking inbound 80 and 21 too. Most ISPs wont let you run servers on residential accounts. -- Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.
Disclaimer: These are MY comments, my employer cant be held responsible. | |
|  |   JamesPC
join:2005-10-12 Orange, CA | Re: Makes sense That would be bullshit if they block port 21. Even blocking inbound 80 is crap. Change ISP if they do this nonsense. | |
|  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| said by tenpin784 :This goes along the lines of blocking inbound 80 and 21 too. Most cable ISPs wont let you run servers on residential accounts. There, fixed it for you. Not every ISP thinks so little of its customers. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by tenpin784 :Most ISPs wont let you run servers on residential accounts. Fortunately, my residential ISP does not explicitly prohibit servers, nor does it block common inbound server ports (just those pesky NetBIOS ports). -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |   tenpin784 I Went To The Dark Side?
join:2001-03-30 New Durham, NH | I didnt mean they actively stop you, they just have it written in their TOS so if you get caught, they have a fighting chance against you | |
|  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | Re: Makes sense said by tenpin784 :I didnt mean they actively stop you, they just have it written in their TOS so if you get caught, they have a fighting chance against you RadioDoc is covered by the same ISP as I...
»helpme.att.net/article.php?item=441 »edit.client.yahoo.com/cspcommon/···page=tos
If you can find the explicit prohibition, please point it out. For the first link you may be required to choose a domain. Any in the drop down list will suffice. And do select "DSL", as well. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |   tenpin784 I Went To The Dark Side?
join:2001-03-30 New Durham, NH | ok, so your one isp, wow
i said most......... | |
|  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Makes sense at&t Yahoo! HSI, Speakeasy, DSL Extreme (not the BS speed tier!), Embarq...I can't find an explicit prohibition in the Qwest DSL TOS, either. Verizon stands out as the only U.S. DSL provider which explicitly prohibits running servers on residential connections. That I can verify.
Of those, AT&T is within half a million subs of equal to Comcast in size.
Modify your statement to, "most cable and dial-up providers", and you will be more accurate. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| ToS Enforcement If you ToS says "not allowed to run servers", it only makes sense that an ISP go after the low-hanging fruit by blocking any and all inbound connections to well-known service ports (FTP, HTTP/HTTPS, SMTP, etc.). Of course, if they want to be real ball-busters about it, they'd do packet inspection, too, to get the people that were running on "off" ports. That takes money, though, and they can do 90% ToS enforcement without the expense of packet inspection. -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
  JamesPC
join:2005-10-12 Orange, CA
| Change I run a mail server for about 1,000 people. Of those people about 25% have to use the ISP outgoing mail server. Mostly for the DSL companies but like I thought the Cable Co's are getting into it more. They need to let there customers know of the change. | |
|  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Change said by JamesPC :I run a mail server for about 1,000 people. Of those people about 25% have to use the ISP outgoing mail server. Mostly for the DSL companies but like I thought the Cable Co's are getting into it more. They need to let there customers know of the change. If you configure your server to use one of the Message Submission ports, your users wouldn't have to use their ISP mail servers. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|   Kniveton
join:2001-09-20 San Francisco, CA | Thank god I have DSL and can run my own mail, web, and imap servers without my ISP interfering with my traffic.
I couldn't care less for my ISP's email, web hosting, etc. Just route my packets to their destination, send me my packets, and everything will be fine. | |
|  |  See 23 replies to this post | |
 jdmatl
join:2000-04-27 Deerfield Beach, FL | 100% BS-Not block outbound TCP 25
sent email today outbound tcp/25 to my mail server at hosted provider.
None was blocked, went out with no issues. | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 mrweirdo
join:2004-09-12 Roseville, CA | :/ the day Comcast blocks my outgoing mail to my hosts mail server which hosts my domain is the day I drop Comcast and switch to a different isp. | |
|  |  See 10 replies to this post | |
  Loker Premium join:2004-07-11 Fargo, ND clubs:
| One Claim? I do not necessarily think it is a bad idea to block port 25 but is one unsubstantiated claim really worth calling it news? I mean with one claim its barely a rumor... -- "While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
|  |   Cabal Premium join:2007-01-21 Boston, MA
| Re: One Claim? No problems here.
$ telnet 71.232.XXX.XXX 25 Trying 71.232.XXX.XXX... Connected to 71.232.XXX.XXX. Escape character is '^]'.
None outgoing either. -- Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
|  |  |   nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: One Claim? said by Cabal :No problems here. $ telnet 71.232.XXX.XXX 25 Trying 71.232.XXX.XXX... Connected to 71.232.XXX.XXX. Escape character is '^]'. None outgoing either. When it's fun is if they transparently proxy you. So, the only way you notice that the port has been messed with is if you pay attention to the SMTP greeting/banner upon connection. -- Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|   JamesPC
join:2005-10-12 Orange, CA | Be a PRO What are you guys doing running mail servers on residential broadband lines??? Word to the wise... rent a rack in a server farm and buy your own blade server. | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
  antiphishing Phishing Scam Terminator Premium join:2004-06-09 Wilkes Barre, PA
| Block port 25 , Use Port '465' SSL Comcast and the problem of Spam |
Don't you just love Comcast as a internet provider, it's a either bandwidth caps or blocking of email ports. 
This is a old story in which Comcast continues to implement a block against email from being sent through port 25 to stop abuse of their equipment.
I try to send all of my email through port 465 (SSL) for security reasons. If more ISP's moved more of their customers to a more secure port like 465 then it would help with the problem of mail relaying. --
Specializing in "takes downs" of phishing and advance fee scams Send your Phishing/Advance fee scams to: phish@antihotmail.com »/profile/1021645
| |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
  TraumaJunkie Premium join:2004-03-05 Knoxville, TN
| They are blocking SMTP Port 25 But only after the account has been identified and spewing forth tons of garbage and spam. You can then use webmail or set up a client using SPA and the instructions are clearly found on the .net website FAQ about email. I use it because when I travel on business I don't have to worry what service the hotel or ofice I am uses I can use my Comcast email server to send mail easily from my Outlook client. -- I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
|   pkarlos_76
join:2004-08-24 Edmonton, AB
| DUhhh They've been doing this since 2004, at least that or longer, whats the big news about this. Get a life ppl. They block all INBOUND (off their network) to fight SPAM. Of course we all know that if they allowed it you would be whining about ht eamount of SPAM. Now go find the alternate port that comcast allows you to use when trying to access your mail via another provider that requires authentication. | |
|   nswint Who Built The Ark? Premium join:2001-11-17 Union City, GA clubs: | SMTP Redirection It's all about SMTP Redirection
»www.rollernet.us/ | |
|   Zaber When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08 Cleveland, OH clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| Confused
ISPs say this isn't the case; blocking inbound port 25 traffic really helps them keep inadvertent open relays to a minimum, and therefore helps keep their IP blocks off of blacklists. I must be missing something here, if the ISPs block outbound TCP25 how can their IP get blocked, even if there is an open relay, any mail sent out doesn't get through anyway?
While I do not agree with the outbound 25 block, it does make since. I do not, however, understand the point of an inbound block unless it is to make someone upgrade to a higher "business" tier. -- Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
|  kpatz MY HEAD A SPLODE Premium join:2003-06-13 Manchester, NH
| If they really want to do it right... 1. They should block 25 outbound only, and provide the option to unblock it by request. 2. Offer a power-users tier that allows servers and doesn't have ports blocked. I would gladly pay extra for such a tier.
IMHO, port blocking should only be employed in cases where the port shouldn't be open to the internet to begin with, such as NetBIOS, SMB, etc. 25 is used by a MAJOR Internet protocol, and blocking it reduces the functionality of my INTERNET connection. It's like the phone company blocking your phone from placing or receiving calls from a particular area code or exchange.
An ISP is an Internet SERVICE Provider. Their job is to provide a connection to the Internet. Blocking of ports is not an ISP's job. If you want ports blocked, there's a gadget called a firewall that you can use.
The bottom line is, I want to control what ports are open and which ones are blocked. Not my ISP. Where I am, my only choices are Comcast and Verizon DSL. If Comcast takes away port 25, I'll have to live without my mail server, or switch to DSL, which is a lot slower and has its own problems (PPPOE etc.) -- Windows Vista has detected that your mouse was moved. In order to enhance your user experience, Vista needs to contact Microsoft to re-activate the software. Please make sure you are connected to the Internet, have your credit card handy, then click OK. | |
|   Tripp
@bellsouth.net
| If outbound is blocked, inbound is largely unnecessary "Other ISPs take that tactic a bit further, blocking inbound port 25 traffic. Some claim this less common tactic is usually done to prevent users from running a mail server" [...] "ISPs say this isn't the case; blocking inbound port 25 traffic really helps them keep inadvertent open relays to a minimum, and therefore helps keep their IP blocks off of blacklists."
There's a bit of irony in that. If an ISP blocks outbound port 25, none of its subscribers can spam other ISP's inbound port 25 (MX). Since they can't spam direct to MX, it really doesn't matter so much if they're running an open relay.
If you block outbound port 25, you really don't need to worry so much about inbound port 25 abuse. There are still good reasons to do so (e.g. the victim could be chain relaying on another port, inbound port 25 eats up some bandwidth, and most customer PCs running open relays on port 25 aren't aware of it and probably otherwise unsecured).
Tripp | |
|  ewm0826
join:2000-05-23 Raynham, MA
| Not Blocked Here I am running a MailEnable server on my Comcast cable service, although I don't use it for daily email. Inbound and outbound ports are not blocked here. Mostly I just run it because I can. I check it each day and it's locked down; no relays going on here although the logs show how the spam vermin try to use it every day.
I initially tried to use it for occasional email but found that Comcast blocks email from its own network! And, the dynamic IP block I'm on is in nearly every reputable black list. Dynamic IPs are a source of spam as we all know. -- =========== Ed | |
|  |   Skink
@comcast.net | Blocked Here I had no open relay,,, I was not spamming... I got no warning and bang 25 shut both ways... what they did was target my mail server... | |
|  jayunsplanet
join:2007-07-09 Parkville, MD
| Comcast Blocking Port 25 is extremely aggravating Wow. After a little over 2 years of pretty good service I get the Port 25 block POS business. I will admit that I do run a Exchange email server that all my @gmail, @comcast @other domains forward to. I've been doing this since I started my service. (First Comcast High speed internet w/ cable. Now HD Digital cable) I send, at most, 3 emails from my server a day. (I usually respond to emails from the actual account they are received in using web mail)
I only use it as a central place to read all my emails and easily save them and have control over my mailbox. Why did they just enact this demented rule now? This is seriously extremely annoying. Unless I can find some other way to run Exchange on another port or some other cleaver masking I'm SOL.
I can understand where Comcast is coming from; having to deal with the scum of the earth scammers, but for your average person (well average server running person) who just wants a simple way to READ their emails in one place, it's overkill. Worse, is now the other members in my house can't send email on Port 587. Only receive it. I'll have to look into the authentication setting.
I wonder if Verizon DSL blocks Port 25. I wouldn't mind DSL and it's upload speeds either... Hummm.
Time to go on the hunt on a workaround, another ISP, or a super great internet email provider that has all the features of my own Exchange system...
Verizon FiOS should be making it's way to my neighborhood sometime in the next year... | |
|  | |  |
|
|