Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> > Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here
> and
> > listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes down to: You ARE in IP
> > Space of known open relays. You ARE in known residential space. You ARE
> > paying a low premium for high bandwidth (compare it if you disagree).
> Hi Ben, et al
> Let me see if I understand your proposition correctly:
> as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone
> who is in close proximity to lawbreakers as long as your doing it to punish
> lawbreakers?
Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a punishment?
What you are saying is basically that the use of an SMTP server is now a god
given right, along side freedom?
> For lawbreakers you can say spammers if that makes you more
> comfortable.
It's not the spammers here. It's the open relays that spammers USE. It's the
people who relay.
> h - No - this definitely doesn't pass my sniff test. By your logic
> its ok to fine or put in jail anyone who lives next to drug dealers or
Again, you're not being put in jail. They're saying, "I don't want you
calling me". Tell me.. Anyone here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers?
I'M BEING REPRESSED! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
> Yes it works for companies, but then companies are entities that make
> conscious, well informed decisions to let people die because the
> cost of the lawsuits is calculated to cost less than changing a design
> defect that left the gas tank filler neck of the Ford Pinto just a
> wee bit too short. I don't think we want to follow that kind of lead
> as an example of principled behavior.
Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the protocol has
no built in method of authentication, this is the best they can do. You can
either eat spam, or do something like this. Period.
> The reason AOL is blocking
> those IP's is its easier than actually blocking the spammers.
> But its wrong. Its breaks the internet, a little bit and begins
> the whole kit and kaboodle sliding toward the day when all email
> and web services MUST go through an AOL/ISP approved node.
They are blacklisting addresses of known open relays. They are refusing to
deliver pizza to an area where people are known to allow attack dogs to freely
roam the streets.
> That must never happen but all the large ISP's would like it to.
> Does anyone think that AOl would never try to act like some of the other
> large monopolistic companies?
Could very well be. But this is one move that, while being annoying as all
hell, is a viable attempt to securing something.
You know.. The same reason why some here always include their PGP signature
to validate identiy?
--
Thomas Charron
-={ Is beadarrach an ni an onair }=-
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote: > Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here and > listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes down to: You ARE in IP > Space of known open relays. You ARE in known residential space. You ARE > paying a low premium for high bandwidth (compare it if you disagree). > > AOL is doing the right thing here and they shouldn't have to answer to you > or anyone else for it. They are stopping spam into their networks - > that's all that matters. Sorry if they're impacting a couple of us, but > life goes on. If you can't accept the fact that you're in know open relay > space, you're blind. There are lists that keep track of open relays and > I'd be willing to bet that you can find >100 at any given time in our ip > space. Hi Ben, et al Let me see if I understand your proposition correctly: as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone who is in close proximity to lawbreakers as long as your doing it to punish lawbreakers? For lawbreakers you can say spammers if that makes you more comfortable. h - No - this definitely doesn't pass my sniff test. By your logic its ok to fine or put in jail anyone who lives next to drug dealers or near people who steal cable. Punishing the innocent just because it takes effort to separate the guilty from the innocent has never ever been acceptable to the human end of society. Yes it works for companies, but then companies are entities that make conscious, well informed decisions to let people die because the cost of the lawsuits is calculated to cost less than changing a design defect that left the gas tank filler neck of the Ford Pinto just a wee bit too short. I don't think we want to follow that kind of lead as an example of principled behavior. So -I understand why AOL has the policy, but I don't agree that its OK. It is sheer laziness. TOS limits are actually intended to reduce bandwidth use, not keep people from running any particular protocol in any particular direction. HTTP request initiated out are OK, but initiated in are not OK? It doesn't really matter to ComCast as long as you don't hog the pipe. Same for AOL. The reason AOL is blocking those IP's is its easier than actually blocking the spammers. But its wrong. Its breaks the internet, a little bit and begins the whole kit and kaboodle sliding toward the day when all email and web services MUST go through an AOL/ISP approved node. That must never happen but all the large ISP's would like it to. Does anyone think that AOl would never try to act like some of the other large monopolistic companies? > > I'm completely behind any company that takes the brave step forward and > does this. Yes, it pisses some people off, but at least it's a definite > step. It brings the problem right out into the open for the people who > can make a difference to see. If you disagree with their choice - talk to > Comcast, not AOL. It's their poor enforcement of problem hosts that make > changes like these. > > Ben > > > -- > > "The gene pool could use a little chlorine." > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > -- Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 2003. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html. Don't forget to change your password often. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote: > This doesn't at all address my point, which is that if > AT&T/Comcast/whoever they are today doesn't see fit to take action > against me for violating my TOS, what business is it of AOL? > Furthermore and more importantly, as Rob points out, outgoing SMTP is > /NOT/ a violation of my TOS. I do not need to run an smtp server /AT > ALL/ to send out mail via SMTP. Most Windows-based mail clients will > happily do this for you (albeit to specifically named SMTP servers). > There are also other programs which will send SMTP which do not > function as mail servers... Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here and listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes down to: You ARE in IP Space of known open relays. You ARE in known residential space. You ARE paying a low premium for high bandwidth (compare it if you disagree). AOL is doing the right thing here and they shouldn't have to answer to you or anyone else for it. They are stopping spam into their networks - that's all that matters. Sorry if they're impacting a couple of us, but life goes on. If you can't accept the fact that you're in know open relay space, you're blind. There are lists that keep track of open relays and I'd be willing to bet that you can find >100 at any given time in our ip space. I'm completely behind any company that takes the brave step forward and does this. Yes, it pisses some people off, but at least it's a definite step. It brings the problem right out into the open for the people who can make a difference to see. If you disagree with their choice - talk to Comcast, not AOL. It's their poor enforcement of problem hosts that make changes like these. Ben -- "The gene pool could use a little chlorine." ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
[OT] Re: What Excites You?
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Bill Sconce wrote: Philosophical: elmininating the possibility that the vendor of my favorite package may go out of business, leaving me stranded; or reposition a product, leaving me stranded; or someday require an expensive upgrade in order that I may continue to work with my own documents. I was reading a post on /. today that (of course) criticized Java for being a proprietary solution, because of the very reasons you stated above. I wonder -- given the tremendous amount of time, work, and code built on top of/with Java, including such incredible open source projects as Tomcat, Xerces, Jikes, etc, is this really a legitimate concern? If you don't care for Java per se, imagine that some other proprietary solution had gained as much support from both commercial and OSS interests -- I'm not really asking specifically about Java. Honest to goodness neat: Python, beyond question. Python has (I believe) changed the professional life of almost everyone who has learned how to use it. I'm with you there. Though I learned Python before I had a professional life... actually I still don't have a professional life yet... Erik ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: What Excites You?
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 16:52, Bill Sconce wrote: > Honest to goodness neat: Python, beyond question. Python has > (I believe) changed the professional life of almost everyone who > has learned how to use it. So Bill, How about a talk about Python for an upcoming meeting? r > -Bill > who's just back from PyCon 2003 :) > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Rob Lembree 29 Milk St. JumpShift, LLC Nashua, NH 03064-1651[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 603.577.9714 PGP: 1F EE F8 58 30 F1 B1 20 C5 4F 12 21 AD 0D 6B 29 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: What Excites You?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:31:43 + Jon Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The object of thistalk is to not only talk about the philosophical > things that excites me, but honest to goodness "neat" programs. Philosophical: elmininating the possibility that the vendor of my favorite package may go out of business, leaving me stranded; or reposition a product, leaving me stranded; or someday require an expensive upgrade in order that I may continue to work with my own documents. Honest to goodness neat: Python, beyond question. Python has (I believe) changed the professional life of almost everyone who has learned how to use it. -Bill who's just back from PyCon 2003 :) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:26:11PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > > Last time I checked, Comcast's "business" rate is more than twice their > > > residential rate yet still suffers from the same "no server" restrictions > > > - they force you to use their SMTP and web servers, and still won't > > > provide static IP addresses. So that's not a viable option for small > > > organizations that want to preserve their network identity. > > > > This is probably true. Most likely, there are underlying motives that > > are far less altruistic. However, their TOS *DOES* state that no servers > > are allowed. So, if someone is running a server in violation of their > > ISP's TOS, and someone like AOL wants to block it, then it is well > > withing their right. > > Well, it's well within AOL's right to block whatever they want, but > /my/ TOS agreement is between me and my provider. Not AOL. My TOS is > none of their [EMAIL PROTECTED] business. > But *your* ISP says no servers. AOL, knowing that, is blocking anything from your ISP that is not an approved IP address. You are violating your ISP's TOS, so AOL is blocking you. -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) As you and I both know, the software may be free, but the beer isn't. --Jon "maddog" Hall ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 13:22, Rob Lembree wrote: > On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 12:26, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote: > > > Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST > > > > If AOL says 'no > > > > direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I > > > > think they're doing the right thing. To ignore the problem only makes it > > > > worse. > > This is probably true. Most likely, there are underlying motives that > > are far less altruistic. However, their TOS *DOES* state that no servers > > are allowed. ... > I don't think that they meant servers in terms of outgoing SMTP > though. If you run SMTP so that you can send out mail, as far > as they should be concerned, it's not a server (it doesn't provide > services to anyone outside the network), any more than sharing > a printer between machines on a home network does. They shouldn't > consider it a server unless it's servicing requests from the outside. Good point - not that Joe Beer even understands what a server is, let alone Comcast management. But they still want you to use their SMTP servers to send outgoing mail. (Acutally, you have to in order to get your "Reply-to" header right). Now, if AOL will permit inbound mail from those main servers (and if Comcast will monitor mail to prevent outgoing spam), then "the world would be a better place". Not perfect, but better than what we have now. Sigh. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 12:26, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote: > > Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST): > > > > > If AOL says 'no > > > direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I > > > think they're doing the right thing. To ignore the problem only makes it > > > worse. > This is probably true. Most likely, there are underlying motives that > are far less altruistic. However, their TOS *DOES* state that no servers > are allowed. So, if someone is running a server in violation of their > ISP's TOS, and someone like AOL wants to block it, then it is well > withing their right. If you want to run servers, then switch to a > service that allows it. Someone who is running servers on their > connection will most likely use more bandwidth, and on a shared > connection like cable, it will (in theory) have an impact on other > users. I don't think that they meant servers in terms of outgoing SMTP though. If you run SMTP so that you can send out mail, as far as they should be concerned, it's not a server (it doesn't provide services to anyone outside the network), any more than sharing a printer between machines on a home network does. They shouldn't consider it a server unless it's servicing requests from the outside. So I think that this is a whole separate issue. -- Rob Lembree 29 Milk St. JumpShift, LLC Nashua, NH 03064-1651[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 603.577.9714 PGP: 1F EE F8 58 30 F1 B1 20 C5 4F 12 21 AD 0D 6B 29 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:26:11PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > While I agree with this whole-heartedly, the only way to change it is > with money. Take your business elsewhere, ad when Comcast, or whom ever > wants to know why, tell them exactly why. I dumped MediaOne (might have > been AT&T at the time) a few years back because their service didn't > meet my needs, and I told them so. I switched to a DSL provider that > offered the services that I wanted,like allowing me to run servers on my > own, static IP addresses, etc. The only way that the big companies will > learn is when their subscribers start leaving en masse to go to a > smaller provider because they are better. > ...unless your only way of getting high speed access is via cable. If I could get DSL, I'd switch in a minute. Unfortunately, I'm ~30k ft from the CO, and Verizon has no intention of changing that situation. -Mark pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote: > Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST): > > > If AOL says 'no > > direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I > > think they're doing the right thing. To ignore the problem only makes it > > worse. > > I believe this has more to do the business war between AOL and Comcast. > And the current war against spam is providing an opportunity for the big > guys to be naughty. (There will always be a few naughty "little guys"). > > Last time I checked, Comcast's "business" rate is more than twice their > residential rate yet still suffers from the same "no server" restrictions > - they force you to use their SMTP and web servers, and still won't > provide static IP addresses. So that's not a viable option for small > organizations that want to preserve their network identity. This is probably true. Most likely, there are underlying motives that are far less altruistic. However, their TOS *DOES* state that no servers are allowed. So, if someone is running a server in violation of their ISP's TOS, and someone like AOL wants to block it, then it is well withing their right. If you want to run servers, then switch to a service that allows it. Someone who is running servers on their connection will most likely use more bandwidth, and on a shared connection like cable, it will (in theory) have an impact on other users. > I'm getting sick and tired of the big guys feeding off me to fund their > efforts to control what I can do. I just want to live my life the way I > want to - not the way they want me to! While I agree with this whole-heartedly, the only way to change it is with money. Take your business elsewhere, ad when Comcast, or whom ever wants to know why, tell them exactly why. I dumped MediaOne (might have been AT&T at the time) a few years back because their service didn't meet my needs, and I told them so. I switched to a DSL provider that offered the services that I wanted,like allowing me to run servers on my own, static IP addresses, etc. The only way that the big companies will learn is when their subscribers start leaving en masse to go to a smaller provider because they are better. C-Ya, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
