Oh a friend of mine (thanks) pointed me to this: ISPs that block Port 25 This list contains some of the major ISPs that block port 25 on their servers (http://www.postcastserver.com/help/Port_25_Blocking.aspx): AT&T (can be unblocked at the request) MindSpring BellSouth MSN CableOne NetZero Charter People PC Comcast ATTBI Sprynet Cox Sympatico.ca EarthLink Verio Flashnet Verizon MediaOne
All are ISPs that understand the problem port 25 poses, and decided to do something On Thursday 24 July 2008 18:21:57 Noam Rathaus wrote: > Hi, > > 1) You are right, but not every plays by the rules, we recently had to > prevent ezmlm from sending bounces for unsubscribed people as it was being > used for spam, and getting us spam marked - so playing by the rules might > be the right thing, but it is not always the intelligent thing to do. > > 2) I heard you the 10th time, I told you don't block, I think in today's > world it is reasonable to block port 25, people either use: > a) web mail (Gmail, Yahoo, Walla, etc) > b) corporate mail via VPN > c) home mail (outlook express, etc) at home > > None of this falls under the Internet cafe problem, and I know, as I drank > quite a few cafes in my life. > > uceprotect is one example, if I had another one I would show it, sorry, > doesn't mean its not the right/wrong example. > > On Thursday 24 July 2008 17:46:51 Imri Zvik wrote: > > 1. Usually it would block the sending system during the SMTP session - so > > if the mail system you are using is properly configured you should get > > ALL the bounces. > > > > 2. You ignored my repeated question - Do you think blocking port 25 all > > together (as they suggest) is a good idea? Keep in mind that if all ISPs > > where to implement that, and you are a Netvision customer, for example, > > and want to send email through 012 Smile mail system using your username > > and password at 012, It wouldn't be possible. > > > > If you are sitting at some coffee place that offers free wifi with ISP > > different than yours, and want to send an email using your ISP mail > > servers, you wouldn't be able to do that. > > > > If you have your own mail server and don't want to route your email > > through your ISP - you wouldn't be able to do that. > > > > This is the *only* way you can live up to uceprotect's expectations in > > the long run. > > > > I am *really* interested to know how many users in this list are pro this > > suggestion, and how many are against it. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noam Rathaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:13 PM > > To: Imri Zvik > > Cc: linux-il > > Subject: Re: Israeli ISP and Blacklisting [summary and stop] > > > > Hi, > > > > I am not completely blocked, but I don't want to be partially blocked > > either. > > > > At least two emails bounced (to two unique destinations) saying we were > > blacklisted, I cannot tell you how many were blocked and didn't bounce - > > it will take me days, if ever to know. > > > > I will solve your security problems, can't help you with your spam > > problems - not my expertise. > > > > Arik didn't disappear, maybe he has work to do beside answering emails > > here - I trust Arik to get back to you. > > > > On Thursday 24 July 2008 17:06:04 Imri Zvik wrote: > > > Again, you are putting it as if you are completely blocked and you > > > cannot send mails at all. Can you please tell me how many of your mails > > > were blocked due to this listing, and to how many unique destinations? > > > > > > Only one person (Arik) complained about actual problem, and when I > > > asked for information he disappeared. > > > > > > It seems you don't really want to solve anything, or suggest any > > > feasible solutions. > > > > > > I ask again - do you think blocking port 25 completely is a good idea? > > > Can you live with that? How many people in this list thinks it's a good > > > idea? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noam Rathaus Sent: > > > Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:33 PM > > > To: linux-il > > > Subject: Re: Israeli ISP and Blacklisting [summary and stop] > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > My last email on the subject :) > > > > > > As it appears that some people are pro-ISP, some are con-ISP, and I > > > don't care which is which > > > > > > All I wanted to see, whether this is a global issue, apparently it is, > > > more than one is willing to talk about it, I believe others simply > > > don't know they are blacklisted, others have yet to be affected by it, > > > and others more don't know they are affected. > > > > > > And me as the person wanting to send emails in a non-spam and legal way > > > is left with the only alternative to move out his servers from Israel - > > > specifically the mail server - as Israeli ISPs are RBLed - YES YES just > > > one RBL and he is a bad bad RBL - which asks too many things - but > > > apparently some ISPs agree to doing it. > > > > > > On Thursday 24 July 2008 15:58:42 you wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Noam Rathaus > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am taking my "stuff" elsewhere, the ISP's responsibility is to > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > service, and it should be good service - meaning stopping others > > > > > from abusing > > > > > the network, which in turn is used against me - as I am blocked in > > > > > an RBL. > > > > > > > > Let me suggest a radical idea. > > > > > > > > I think that it is a good thing that Israel will be blocked in as > > > > many RBLs as possible. > > > > > > > > And here's why. For the people on this list, it's a big deal but not > > > > critical. I put it to you that most companies will deal with it one > > > > way or another, by tunneling their ways somehow. I can think of 10 > > > > ways right now. > > > > > > > > The people who will suffer are the "regular users", those who use the > > > > ISP mailbox (gaaa!) and have zero technical knowhow. There are a lot > > > > of them, which means that they will make a lot of noise. > > > > > > > > The ISPs will then become a relatively unregulated industry that > > > > apparently doesn't work properly without regulation. It also has a > > > > status of a quasi-essential infrastructure. I sincerely hope that the > > > > regulator will step up to the plate and regulate the ISPs and what > > > > they need to do to spammers, in an effort to make the infrastructure > > > > usable again. Maybe our star will shine and we'll see some > > > > heavy-handed anti-spam law, especially if the ISPs respond to > > > > regulation by saying the burden is too high because spammers don't > > > > have an incentive to stop. > > > > > > > > So before you start flaming, consider this: Change only happen out of > > > > necessity. The stronger the necessity - the swifter the change. > > > > Lithium-ion batteries did not come to be before laptops and > > > > cellphones became a commodity. Hybrid cars didn't become a reality > > > > before gas prices went so high that people actually started buying > > > > them. And conversly, think of Israel's desalination plants - how they > > > > come to be whenever there's a year or two of draft, and then fall > > > > apart at the first sign of a rainy year. > > > > > > > > And since one of the participants in this discussion at least seems > > > > to work for an ISP, the same ISP from which I get most of my Hebrew > > > > spam, the same ISP from which spam contains the header of the ISP's > > > > own relay, and passes SPF checks, the same ISP which gets messages to > > > > the abuse alias from me every month and never responds (robots > > > > excluded) - I view your behaviour as aiding and abetting the > > > > spammers. I have proof that the addresses the spammers use could > > > > never have been gotten from me (heck my domain was > > > > dictionary-attacked by them), and I hope that you get blacklisted as > > > > much as possible. I also hope that your users leave you for this very > > > > reason and that you fail financially, so the spammers have to find a > > > > less hospitable environ. I wish this ruin on you because you are > > > > acting, in my personal opinion, in bad faith and in cohorts with the > > > > sort of people who I would like to see their activity as felonious. I > > > > hope that once the regulation comes you will continue with your bad > > > > behaviour as to become the first test case of disobeying the > > > > regulation and that you shall lose and become the precedent for any > > > > other such case. You know who you are. > > > > > > > > -- Arik -- Noam Rathaus CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.beyondsecurity.com "Know that you are safe." Beyond Security Finalist for the "Red Herring 100 Global" Awards 2007 ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
