Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On 29 Mar 2003, Scott Garman wrote: > I clearly understand the spam problem, but this does not seem to be a > reasonable solution to it. I could even see allowing individual AOL > users the ability to set brain-dead, highly restrictive anti-spam rules > like this, but not making a blanket decision for all of its users. This is an -incredibly- reasonable solution! I'm psyched that AOL has finally made a good decision about it. I run an smtp server at my place too, but it's trivial to hand the mail off to another server that'll accept it. This is done for dial-up pools all the time, hell - there's even a list from maps including the dial pools - the DUL. Despite your problems now, this is a great thing and really makes me think better of AOL. There's a very large amount of open relays on this network... yeah, it should be dealt with by the abuse dept., but there simply isn't enough bodies to deal with the sheer volume of problems and things like child pornography and actual hacking takes precendence (as it should). If AOL finally got fed up and said 'enough is enough', I congratulate them for helping to make spam less of an issue. Ben -- Thought for the day: Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
This matter is of interest to me for a number of reasons and very timely; I still have a lot to learn about email setup/admin stuff and I was just about to ditch std.com (because of their dainbramaged anti-SPAM measures) and switch over to running my own server on my ComCast-connected Linux box. >This is an -incredibly- reasonable solution! I'm psyched >that AOL has finally made a good decision about it. I run >an smtp server at my place too, but it's trivial to hand >the mail off to another server that'll accept it. I assume that as a ComCast subscriber it'd be simplest for me to just be handing off to the ComCast server for outbound deliveries, yes? Would that "hide" the terrible origins of my email sufficiently to please AOL? What are the gotchas involved in doing that? Is there any other reason for me to worry about making this switchover. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote: > forced into using resources that I don't want to use. My connection > has adequate bandwidth to handle the traffic of my tiny little e-mail > server, and I'm not a spammer. So I should not be punnished for the > sins of others... Like it or not, the internet is a community. Can you carry a gun without a license? Why not, if you're not a killer? The truth is, until there's a central body of control over the internet (that actually has the ability to enforce rules), companies should be self governing. 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. > What I would like to see is a central database of people who are known > spammers, including the credit card(s) used to open the spammer > account, which ISPs should consult before providing an account. Why > am I ok with this? Because sending spam is a crime, and that makes While it's a nice idea - it's fraught with problems. Check out the zorch mailing list - they often have discussions about this very subject. Abuse.net, ORBS and MAPS all do a part of this... but here's the truth: The services you're talking about are residential services... If I were AOL, I wouldn't see any reason to allow mail directly from that either. I'm sure they're not blocking Business class DSL space - what about a hosting facility? These are business solutions. I like running my own smtp server too. The people who install sendmail, forget about it, and never protect it make it worse for me - but I can live with that because I know that I'm sitting in the ip space that comcast uses for their residential customers. If I didn't want to be lumped into this group, I'd pay more for something else. Ben -- "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man." -- Mark Twain ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 08:47, Derek Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:50:01AM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote: > > On 29 Mar 2003, Scott Garman wrote: > > > I clearly understand the spam problem, but this does not seem to be a > > > reasonable solution to it. I could even see allowing individual AOL > > > users the ability to set brain-dead, highly restrictive anti-spam rules > > > like this, but not making a blanket decision for all of its users. > > > > This is an -incredibly- reasonable solution! I'm psyched that AOL has > > finally made a good decision about it. I run an smtp server at my place > > too, but it's trivial to hand the mail off to another server that'll > > accept it. > > Well, I have to disagree. That is, it is trivial to hand my mail off > to my provider's smtp server, but the whole point of me running my own > is I DON'T WANT THAT. I don't want to rely on their servers working, > and frankly I don't want my mail ever making it to a disk drive in > their server farm. Granted, the mail I send traverses their wires, > which is already more than I want to allow, but I see no reason to be > forced into using resources that I don't want to use. My connection > has adequate bandwidth to handle the traffic of my tiny little e-mail > server, and I'm not a spammer. So I should not be punnished for the > sins of others... I'll echo Derek's objections, and add one more: I don't want to be subject to the policies of my ISP's mail server. In particular, more and more ISPs are starting to require that all mail sent through their SMTP servers must use return addresses from their domain. I don't believe Comcast is one of them yet, but Verizon has had this policy for their DSL customers for almost a year. Scott -- Scott A. GarmanUnix System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNH Nuclear Physics Group ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
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. The bottom line is that there's still not enough competition - at least not at the tiers close to the consumer and small business organization. And current government trends would indicate that local competition won't happen in the forseeable future either. Sigh. 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! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
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
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 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 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 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, 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
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.
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.
Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In reality, it's likely that SOL is blocking mail from thos IPs to > prevent spam. Broadband users are, unfortunately, a good source of > spam. The AT&T/Comcast/Time Warner/@Home IP ranges are all listed on > several RBL servers, for that reason. So this discussion is probably > academic, but it's still annoying. This whole thread is rather appropos for me; last week I started getting a lot of spam from the Comcast domain (around 40-50 messages last week (I complained about all of these)). It seems to me that Comcast is trying to make sure that their network isn't being used to interject spam onto the Internet by requiring their users to use their central SMTP servers, and then monitoring these. By their reasoning, allowing users to run their own SMTP severs makes their job of monitoring outgoing spam more difficult. OTOH, I can understand why people would be interested in running their own SMTP servers. Regards, --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA) cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E) alumni.unh.edu!kdc ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 08:22, Derek Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 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). > > No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT? > That argument is of the same mentality as, "Well, you live in the > neiborhood where all the drug dealers live, so if you are wrongly > imprisoned for dealing drugs, that's just too bad." This is completely flawed logic, since the comparison doesn't work. You are in no way trapped, since you have a usable, working alternative. A more likely comparison would be: You live in a neighborhood known for thieves. Everyone locks their doors. If you want to get into their house, you have to knock, and they have to let you in. Oh, hold it, my deadbolt must be repressing my neighbors freedom... > I don't buy it. You don't have to. Truth is free ;-) > And while most other providers of high-bandwidth connections are a lot > more expensive, there are two types of high-bandwidth connections that > are (more or less) universally inexpensive for consumers: broadband, > and DSL. The problem is that neither are universally available, and > more importantly neither market has sufficient competition. We have > the latter thanks to government listening to the lobbyists for the > large telecoms (like AT&T/Comcast), shutting out everyone else. > So, you can go complain to Comcast about anything you like until > you're blue in the face, but they don't have to listen to you, and in > general they simply won't, because they know they have you by the > crunchies. And they're doing everything in their power to keep it > that way. This is true. Sort of. There are several DSL companies out there that have designed their services and pricing around users like us:Speakeasy, Mindspring, Lightband, etc. They provide excellent service, and allow you to do the things you want. They are a little more expensive then broadband. But, if you want a Lexus, don't buy a Toyota and demand that the manufacturer change it to suit your desires. As to your other argument about your TOS being between you and your ISP and AOL should stay out of it, this again is not totally true. AOL is aware of the fact that Comcast/AT&T/Mediaone/Whatever does not enforce their TOS, and therefore, people are running open relays and spam services on high speed connections. This has a direct effect on AOL's customer base. AOL, acting on behalf of their subscriber base, took action to block traffic that shouldn't exist to begin with. You say that "You don't have to run an SMTP server...", but the fact is, you are. There is absolutely no entitlement here. There is also no trampling of freedoms. I doubt that anyone can show me anywhere in the Constitution where is says that you have the right to run an SMTP server. C-Ya, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 08:44, Derek Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: > > > 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? > > Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the > broadband users who want to run their own services that are being > punished. No, they aren't. They are being forced to live up to an agreement that they willingly entered into by an entity trying to help it's subscriber base. > > > 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. > > It's both. Many spammers are people with broadband connections, > looking to use it to make a few extra bucks. > > > 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. > > So what? I'm still being restricted without having done anything to > deserve it... It's still a punishment. No, it isn't a punishment. And you were restricted the second that you signed the agreement. AOL has a right to restrict what comes in. A legitimate e-mail from a Comcast mail server can get in. People doing what isn't allowed, and sending mail from places that it shouldn't come from in the first place can't. Where is this a restriction on you? If you follow the rules, then you should be fine. I bet you have sendmail set up to check for bogus headers, right? Why? You're restricting my right to forge e-mail headers. > > They're saying, "I don't want you calling me". Tell me.. Anyone > > here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers? > > Woah. Wrong. They're saying, "I don't want you calling anyone I > provide service to." Since when is it OK for the phone company to > block calls from telemarketers? You've missed the boat here too. > Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a > choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the > service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its > customers. Woah. Wrong. They are saying "You can only call from a real phone. Anyone using an illegally cloned cell phone can't. And yes, it is their right, as they are acting not only on behalf of their subscriber base, but on behalf of themselves. How much do think it costs an ISP with 7 million subscribers to process all of the spam daily? > > 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. > > Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go > about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine > the bastards for every spam sent. Uh-huh And when the spammer forges your name onto the headers, I'm sure you'll pay the fine, too. > > > 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. > > Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some > (relatively) few bad eggs live. >From the sounds of it, there are a whole lot more bad eggs then you think, seeing as you are one of them. No, you're not a spammer, but you admit to violating the rules and running a server. So, everyone should be allowed to run an SMTP server, right? Well, who's to say that all of Comcast's subscribers will know how to lock down an SMTP server? I bet they don't. Gee, I wonder why there are so many open relays on Comcasts network. Must be the sense of entitlement. > > > 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. > > It's still wrong. No, it really isn't. The only people that have a problem with this are the people who are doing what they aren't supposed to be doing in the first place. The only people breaking any actual rules here are the people running the SMTP servers on Comcast's network. > > You know.. The same reason why some here always include their PGP signature > > to validate identiy? > > No, very different. The latter
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: Hi Tom, thanks for your reply - I enjoy the discourse. > uoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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? It isn't. Whats happening here is that hundreds, possibly thousands of people who do NOT have open relays cannot use a standard internet protocol in the standard, approved fashion. Twenty years of internet policy are thrown away because AOL/comcast are lazy. > What you are saying is basically that the use of an SMTP server is now a god > given right, along side freedom? No - but proper cooperative behavior - which includes freely exchanging email, is part of the basic nature of the internet and has been for over twenty years. It is a fundamental characteristic which makes the internet so valuable and useful. If it is abridged the entire Internet is damaged. And this is not some vague, theoretical damage. Take a look at "at Home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman or "The collapse of chaos" by Cohen and Stewart. The specific emergent characteristics of the internet are completely dependent on the uncensored nature of the flow of information on the internet. An entity as large as AOL can actually damage that flow and in so doing will lessen the internet, eventually causing great harm. Further more - AOL's decision doesn't fix the spam problem. It just pushes it somewhere else. Lets really fix the problem. Lets implement an SMTP protocol that contains embedded PGP Authentication. No more casual anonymity. (Real anonymity has a purpose and will still need to be available through anonymous email gateways which are PGP authenticated) > > 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. So is comcast scanning for Open Relays and shutting them down/getting them fixed? No - they are implementing a policy that harms more innocent parties than guilty parties Do we take away everyone's car because drunk drivers use them too? ... > 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? But I am not an unknown number - all my mail comes from kinz.org. I am available to be held accountable for my emails. (And I have been, believe me :-) ) At the very least AOL should accept SMTP from registered domains. I can understand not accepting it from semi-anonymous dynamically assigned IP's. > > I'M BEING REPRESSED! I'M BEING REPRESSED! (Come see the violence inherent in the sys-admin! :-) (http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99mar/uf000427.gif) > > 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 :-) I'm not comparing the magnitude of immorality in the Pinto decision to AOL decision to block residential IP's. I'm saying its the same KIND of thinking, "We don't care who gets hurt, we are maximizing profit". > 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. Hmmm - I don't eat spam - I use Bogofilter. So lets change the protocol! > > > 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. Again - that doesn't fix the problem. It allows it to grow and get worse. > > > 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. It "secures" a huge block of innocent peoples internet nodes. Just to get relatively few poorly secured s
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 09:19, Derek Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:05:56AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > > No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT? > > > That argument is of the same mentality as, "Well, you live in the > > > neiborhood where all the drug dealers live, so if you are wrongly > > > imprisoned for dealing drugs, that's just too bad." > > > > This is completely flawed logic, since the comparison doesn't work. You > > are in no way trapped, since you have a usable, working alternative. A > > The same is true for the guy living with the drug dealers. Don't want > to be arrested with the rest of the drug dealers? Move! This is partially correct. If you don't want to be arested with the other drug deals, don't deal drugs. If you don't want to live with them, then you can move. > Frankly, I think the analogy is perfect. > > > more likely comparison would be: You live in a neighborhood known for > > thieves. Everyone locks their doors. If you want to get into their > > house, you have to knock, and they have to let you in. Oh, hold it, my > > deadbolt must be repressing my neighbors freedom... > > No Ken, I'm not trying to break down anyone's doors, or invade > anyone's home. I am not a spammer. Your analogy falls down. Well, I don't think that you're dealing drugs, or that martial law has been imposed, and I don't see people being rounded up and thrown in jail for no reason (political climate aside), either. What I see is companies trying to curtail behavior (spamming) that we all agree is a problem. > > > And while most other providers of high-bandwidth connections are a lot > > > more expensive, there are two types of high-bandwidth connections that > > > are (more or less) universally inexpensive for consumers: broadband, > > > and DSL. The problem is that neither are universally available, and > > > more importantly neither market has sufficient competition. We have > > > the latter thanks to government listening to the lobbyists for the > > > large telecoms (like AT&T/Comcast), shutting out everyone else. > > > So, you can go complain to Comcast about anything you like until > > > you're blue in the face, but they don't have to listen to you, and in > > > general they simply won't, because they know they have you by the > > > crunchies. And they're doing everything in their power to keep it > > > that way. > > > > This is true. Sort of. There are several DSL companies out there that > > have designed their services and pricing around users like us:Speakeasy, > > Mindspring, Lightband, etc. They provide excellent service, and allow > > you to do the things you want. They are a little more expensive then > > broadband. But, if you want a Lexus, don't buy a Toyota and demand that > > the manufacturer change it to suit your desires. > > I have no problem using one of those alternatives, and when I get back > from Asia, that's most likely what I will do. The problem is that all > of these services will most likely disappear in a year, when the > deregulation of DSL takes effect, and the phone company is no longer > required to make their lines available to competitors, as I understand > it. You may understand incorrectly, then. The deregulation means that the existing LEC will not have to open their CO's up to competition. However, they will still have to honor existing contracts with other providers. > > As to your other argument about your TOS being between you and your ISP > > and AOL should stay out of it, this again is not totally true. AOL is > > aware of the fact that Comcast/AT&T/Mediaone/Whatever does not enforce > > their TOS, and therefore, people are running open relays and spam > > services on high speed connections. This has a direct effect on AOL's > > customer base. AOL, acting on behalf of their subscriber base, took > > action to block traffic that shouldn't exist to begin with. You say that > > "You don't have to run an SMTP server...", but the fact is, you are. > > Sure, but what if I'm not? What if I just prefer to send may own mail > out myself, without it going through my ISP's relay? You say the > traffic shouldn't exist... on what merit? Again, the TOS agreement > does NOT limit outgoing SMTP. So why shouldn't it exist? It shouldn't exist on the merit that the only mail servers that should exist on Comcast's network are those that Comcast runs. If the mail comes from a residential IP address, then it isn't one of Comcasts mail servers. > Why shouldn't I be able to use a different SMTP server from that > provided by my ISP? Perhaps I have another e-mail account on another > system, and I need to be able to access it from my home broadband > account. Should that traffic not exist? That's outgoing SMTP... > If that's ok, but the other isn't, how do you make the distinction? The distinction is that if you send your mail through another relay
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Derek Martin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: 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? Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the broadband users who want to run their own services that are being punished. No, you aren't being punished. When you signed up for residential broadband, you agreed to not run servers. I understand, you say you're trying to make SMTP connections to other machines. Yes, you can do this without actually running a MTA in daemon mode. Yes, it sucks for you that AOL is blocking IPs on "known dial-up lists," but they have no choice. AOL cannot block individual IPs, they must block ranges from the lists. Why? Because IPs on dialup lists are not guaranteed to be static. The Comcast admins may have set their DHCP to always send your cable modem the same IP because it is often easier to configure this way. However, there's no guarantee you'll always get that IP address. An admin could sit down at a console and change their IP scheme in 5 minutes. So, faced with the fact that AOL gets spam potentially costing them and their customers millions of dollars a day from a block of IPs that could be (and quite probably are) dynamically allocated, what are they to do? If they don't want to hemmorhage money and lose customers in droves (which they do anyway, but that's another topic altogether), they must block all of those IPs. They can't just selectively block the ones that are sending the spam, because there is no guarantee that those IPs will always be the same. These IPs could, and with most ISPs (Verizon DSL does this) they do, often change. As someone that has had to deal with spam on a daily basis (I helped admin the mail server for the College of Engineering at the University of KY), I understand completely where AOL is coming from on this, and if I were in their shoes, I'd most definitely do the same thing. 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. So what? I'm still being restricted without having done anything to deserve it... It's still a punishment. It's not a punishment. It's a business decision. AOL decided that they can't afford to filter spam from this IP block, so they simply block them all. It makes perfect sense. You do have choices. You can switch to DSL with an ISP who will allow you to run servers, and whose IPs are not on a blaclist or a dialup list. Then you can connect directly to AOL's SMTP servers and spam them all you like. If you can't get DSL where you live, then you can move. You could also pay for a T1. You could use your ISP's mail server. You have plenty of choices, though not all of them may be viable depending on your circumstances. They're saying, "I don't want you calling me". Tell me.. Anyone here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers? Woah. Wrong. They're saying, "I don't want you calling anyone I provide service to." Since when is it OK for the phone company to block calls from telemarketers? You've missed the boat here too. Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its customers. Actually, phone companies may have that right. They've never tried it. Fact is, though, we aren't talking about phone service, we're talking about email. After all, I'm free not to answer my phone, and when I don't the phone company's cost of that call is practically nil. If AOL has to accept spam from evey open relay on the net, then there is a definite economic cost in bandwidth, disk space, and aministrator overhead. Most undelieverable messages have to be manually removed from the queue. At U.K., we'd spend a couple hours a week doing this for a mail server with 6,000 users. I imagine it's a full time job for a dozen or so people at AOL with several million customers. You still can (and should) use your ISP's SMTP server to send mail to AOL customers. You can still mail them if you want to, so what if you can't do it in your preferred manner. You aren't being punished. Your choices are being limited. When you signed up with Comcast, you pretty much agreed to those limits. 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. Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine the bastards fo
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: 26 Mar 2003 12:26:11 EST "Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >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. Unfortunately, this means that the big companies will never learn, since they cater to the needs of the "average masses", who, by definition, only want what they're told they can have :) The number of people who have the talent, time, and inclination to run their own servers are probably less than 1% of the population on-line, which leaves greater than 99% for the big companies to make a profit off of. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Time for my $.02. When I signed up for my cable modem, I already had an internal network, and at that time, Continental Cablevision did not disapprove of internal networks. The then VP of Broadband Operations actually talked about internal networks, mostly in the context of serving web pages and that it is better to use their servers than to have one at home. More recently, the larger companies just make more restrictive rules because a restrictive rule is easier for someone to enforce. AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing cable, they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is Earthlink. I don't know AOL's motives for blocking Comcast's dynamic IP addresses, but that might also be an agreement between Comcast and AOL. I don't particularly like it, but for myself, I can either send through Comcast's SMTP servers. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote: > AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing cable, > they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is Earthlink. Um, Time Warner Cable. AOL ownes Time Warner now. They are a competing cable company, and I would assume that they have, at some point, strung cable. C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:53, Jerry Feldman wrote: > On 31 Mar 2003 13:52:34 -0500 > "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote: > > > > > AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing > > > cable, they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is > > > Earthlink. > > > > Um, Time Warner Cable. AOL ownes Time Warner now. They are a competing > > cable company, and I would assume that they have, at some point, > > strung cable. > I know the corporate structure, but I believe that AOL signed an > agreement with AT&T a year or so ago. They are advertising in regions > where is is little or no Warner Cable presense. Oh, really? Thanks for the correction. I figured that since AOL now owned a cable company that they would solely use it, expand it, and take over the world... -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:19:32 EST Derek Martin said: >It also says nowhere in the consitution that I have a right to buy an >automobile that won't blow up when struck in the rear (to borrow >Jeff's pinto analogy), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't expect it. Huh, the pinto had this problem too? I thought it was only the Chevelle and the Corvair. I love this list, I learn something new (totally useless, but new none-the-less) every day :) -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
>> 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. > >Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go >about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine >the bastards for every spam sent. A good amount of the spam I get is from Southeast Asia - good luck going after them >> They are blacklisting addresses of known open relays. > >Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some >(relatively) few bad eggs live. Unless I misunderstand, you don't have a static IP address, but rather a dynamic address (that may change infrequently) within one of those IP blocks. So I think the pizza delivery analogy fits this perfectly. Since the address can change, they can't very well blacklist a single address within the block. The only viable option is to blacklist the whole block. If you had a static address, I would argue in your favor since they could tell if you were spamming and punish you accordingly. I spend a good part of my day, every day, just deleting the spam that works its way though my email filters. Anything that lessens that is a good thing. I am considering turning on the reverse-lookup to ensure that my SMTP servers don't accept email from spoofed addresses, even though that would use up precious network resources. Chris Blake ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: 31 Mar 2003 09:41:04 EST "Kenneth E. Lussier" said: > So why shouldn't it exist? > >It shouldn't exist on the merit that the only mail servers that should >exist on Comcast's network are those that Comcast runs. If the mail >comes from a residential IP address, then it isn't one of Comcasts mail >servers. But I can write a program to directly connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet, by your argument, I should not have the right to choose the client I wish and send this e-mail however the fsck I want? Sorry, as Derek stated, outgoing SMTP does not a server make :) >No, it isn't censorship in any way. They are not preventing you from >doing anything. They are merely imposing rules on how it is done. Same >as the government does with laws. The difference here is that you don't >have to use the service if you don't like the rules. But the rules do not state one single thing about how I have to send e-mail. There may be rules stating I can't run a private server, but a private SMTP server is for INCOMING SMTP, not outgoing. Outgoing smtp is from a client, not a server, and there are no TOS statements about which clients I can or cannot use. >It shouldn't be up to you. It's *THEIR* service. They have the right to >put any limits on it that they want. If you don't like the rules, then >don't use the service. But the point is that the DO NOT put any restrictions on traffic eminating/originating *from* the residential connection, only connections *destined to, but not originating from* said connection. IOW, as long as the connection originates from my system, there is no restriction, since originating/initiating connections are *clients*. Incoming connections to a system, which are externally originated, mena the destination is a server, and *this* is what is restricted by the TOS, not the former. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Jeff Kinz wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a punishment? It isn't. Whats happening here is that hundreds, possibly thousands of people who do NOT have open relays cannot use a standard internet protocol in the standard, approved fashion. Twenty years of internet policy are thrown away because AOL/comcast are lazy. No. You can still send them mail. You just must use another method. They aren't being lazy. (See my previous mail.) What you are saying is basically that the use of an SMTP server is now a god given right, along side freedom? No - but proper cooperative behavior - which includes freely exchanging email, is part of the basic nature of the internet and has been for over twenty years. It is a fundamental characteristic which makes the internet so valuable and useful. If it is abridged the entire Internet is damaged. Yes, and the entire Internet is damaged by the flood of spam and undeliverable email messages that are sent every day. Right now, there is no way to police this other than rejecting IP ranges and installing imperfect spam filters. I would argue the Internet is damaged more by spam than by having a few IP blocks restricted on some mail servers. And this is not some vague, theoretical damage. Take a look at "at Home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman or "The collapse of chaos" by Cohen and Stewart. The specific emergent characteristics of the internet are completely dependent on the uncensored nature of the flow of information on the internet. An entity as large as AOL can actually damage that flow and in so doing will lessen the internet, eventually causing great harm. Perhaps they would actually damage the Internet if they were a *real* part of the Internet. As it stands now, they are a gated community in one of the Internet's suburbs. They are not grand central starion or I-95. The only people that will truly be harmed by AOL's decisions are their customers. Their customers have choices. They can leave AOL, and apparently many are. For some people, AOL is basically just training wheels for the Interent. Other people like the services that AOL provides and they choose to stay. As for emergent behavior, what I learned in AI class was that emergent behavior is the appearance of intelligence in a larger system composed many agents each acting in their own self-interest or according to their own programming. They are not programmed to cooperate in any particular manner, though they may be allowed to interact in many diverse ways. By imposing this rule upon AOL, "thou shalt accept mail from all IPS," you are actually imposing an artificial restraint upon the system. You're interfering with the emergent behavior of the 'net more than is AOL. AOL, as even the small part of the 'net that they are, is participating in the emergent behavior of the 'net. Their decision to block IP addresses is just a part of that behavior. Further more - AOL's decision doesn't fix the spam problem. It just pushes it somewhere else. Lets really fix the problem. Lets implement an SMTP protocol that contains embedded PGP Authentication. No more casual anonymity. (Real anonymity has a purpose and will still need to be available through anonymous email gateways which are PGP authenticated) Anonymity has a price. Identity has a price. You can't have it both ways. I understand why you want PGP authentication on mail servers, it makes sense. However, PGP would then have to be tightly integrated into the 'net and most 'net applications, not just email. Most folks seem to have problems with the relatively simple protocols that we have now. Adding a layer of PGP at this point would simply complicate things further. It also opens up the possible of real identity theft, becasue it would build a false sense of security among Internet users. I believe most people's keys would soon be compromised simply because they chose lousy pass phrases. Even at U.K., where we gave everyone with a computer a handout on passwords and many even got a lecture, most passwords on the system were joes. Anything that relies on passwords and pass phrases for security is inherently insecure. Getting into real security is a huge topic, but I don't really think it is possible on a computer network. One-hundred percent security (if you can measure it at all) isn't possible any where at any time. On the 'net, I don't think you could security even approaching 5%. No, I don't think IPV6 will help. I don't think you can architect a publicly accessible network that would have any kind of security on the whole. There maybe isolated pockets that are reletively secure, but the majority of it will be like life, wild and free and open. [All right, I'm drifting way off-topic.] It's not the spammers here. It's the open relays that spammers USE. It's the people who relay. So is comcast scanning for Open
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Derek Martin wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: > >>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. > > Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go > > > about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine > > the bastards for every spam sent. > > I'm not even going to touch this. There are actually more effective > solutions. Law enforcement solutions are reactionary and generally > counterproductive. It's better to just block IPs and work on improving > spam filter software. Better user education is also required to help > people identify and ignore spam. I don't think that filtering is the ultimate right answer to stopping spam (although I don't deny that this is a useful technique). I spend some time every day complaining about spam. I don't do this just for laughs -- I do this because I hope that I'm helping just eliminate this crap. I wish other people would do this too. Spammers are like litterbugs. When I see litter, I pick it up. If I see enough garbage, I complain. If the spammer continues this practice, and gets find and or imprisoned, I say that's a good start. But I don't think that putting on rose-colored glasses and ignoring the problem (filtering) is the ultimate right answer. Regards, --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA) cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E) alumni.unh.edu!kdc ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: 27 Mar 2003 09:27:32 EST "Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >> Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the >> broadband users who want to run their own services that are being >> punished. > > >No, they aren't. They are being forced to live up to an agreement that >they willingly entered into by an entity trying to help it's subscriber >base. Where in the TOS did you sign agreeing to use only the SMTP client of their choice? >No, it isn't a punishment. And you were restricted the second that you >signed the agreement. Again I ask, where did any customer of Comcast sign agreeing to only use the SMTP clients of Comcast's choosing? >AOL has a right to restrict what comes in. A legitimate e-mail from a >Comcast mail server can get in. Is an e-mail created using a perl script not just as equal as one sent via sanctioned relay? They are both outgoing SMTP originating from the same IP address. Yet the perl-script generated one will get blocked because it speaks directly to AOLs server rather than going through someone else's relay. >People doing what isn't allowed, and sending mail from places that it >shouldn't come from in the first place can't. Wait a minute! Where in the TOS does it say I can't send e-mail from my home PC for which I'm paying the proper fee for a high-speed internet connection? >Where is this a restriction on you? If I can't send e-mail from the system I'm paying the bill for, that's a restriction, and one not mentioned in the TOS. >If you follow the rules, then you should be fine. But what rules aren't being followed? There is no rule stating that outgoing SMTP isn't allowed. The rule states no servers, which restrict IN-BOUND connections, not outbound. You do not run an SMTP *server* to *send* e-mail, you run a *client* which connects to a remote SMTP server. >I bet you have sendmail set up to check for bogus headers, right? Why? >You're restricting my right to forge e-mail headers. >> Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some >> (relatively) few bad eggs live. > >From the sounds of it, there are a whole lot more bad eggs then you >think, seeing as you are one of them. Why is he a 'bad egg'? AOL's intent is to block spam. Period. He is not spamming, and he is not doing anything against his TOS agreement for which AOL should legitimately blacklist him. The fact that he runs an SMTP server which *accepts* incoming e-mail destined to his domain has nothing to do with *outgoing* e-mail. It's like being charged for DUI when you were only speeding. Yes, you were breaking one law, but you should not be charged for a violation you did not commit based on your other, unrelated actions. >No, you're not a spammer, but you admit to violating the rules and >running a server. He violates a rule for which he not being accused of violating, and being accused of violating a rule which does not exist. Charge the criminal for what they did, not for something that's exlicitly allowed. >So, everyone should be allowed to run an SMTP server, right? >Well, who's to say that all of Comcast's subscribers will know how >to lock down an SMTP server? This argument has absolutely nothing to do with running an SMTP server. AOL is blocking direct SMTP connections. SMTP connections are made by clients not servers. The fact that the client can also act as an SMTP server which *may* accept incoming connections is completely irrellevent. >The only people breaking any actual rules here are the >people running the SMTP servers on Comcast's network. While the acceptance of an incoming connection to your residential service may be in violation of Comcast's TOS, initiating an outbound connection is most definitely NOT. And *that* is what they are being restricted from doing by AOL. >> No, very different. The latter is to provide information for those >> who may want it. The former is to block communications from an entire >> class of people just because it *might* be unwanted. > >Whoah. You're a "Class of people" now? Let m get this straight. Is >the class of people Comcast subscribers, Comcast subscribers that run >SMTP servers, people who run SMTP servers, or what??? No, the "Class of people" would be anyone who wishes to send e-mail but not go through the providers servers. Look at this way, how would you feel if certain web sites stated you could not view their pages unless you configured your web browser to go though a proxy server with an IP address assigned to your ISP? This is *exactly* what AOL is doing with e-mail. They are forcing people to send e-mail through a proxy server. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! __
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Derek Martin wrote: SPAM IS AGAINST THE LAW. You should not be able to send it. But that Where is it against the law? Washington State, parts of California, Oregon, maybe, Virginia, Maryland, possibly. Show me where to get the text of the law that makes spam illegal. What's illegal are the frauds that the majority of spams contain, not the actual spam itself. Unsolicited Bulk Email is not illegal. If it were, then cold calls and junk mail would likely be illegal also. still does not mean I should not be able to run my own legitimate server, just because my service provider thinks I *might* spam someone. In this country, we punish people for crimes (legal or otherwise -- there are mutiple kinds of crime) they have actually committed, not ones they might commit. We've already established that you aren't being punished. You are right, LEGALLY Comcast has the right to do this. But I am arguing that there is no MORAL basis for them to do so. It is anti-consumer. And ultimately you get your way, because I am not using their service any longer... Comcast isn't doing anything to you. AOL is blocking your mail. When you got your cable service, you agreed to Mediaone's TOS. When comcast/attbi took over, your continued use of their service implies your agreement with the TOS. If you operate in violation of the TOS, then you do so at your own risk. I know you said that a M1 employee told you nothing would happen if you weren't causing problems, but that employee may not have had the right to speak for the company that way. Regardless of what the employee said, the TOS is there and if you violate it, they can terminate. Morality has nothing to do with this discussion. In reading your proposed solutions for spam in some of your other messages, I'm starting to question your political views. Your proposed strongarm tactics sound more fascist than the current system. At least now, companies and individuals can make their own decisions. You sound as though you want to institute a police state on the 'Net by criminalizing spam, hunting the spammers down, and seizing their equipment. History shows that law enforcement solutions to societal problems rarely work. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I can write a program to directly connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet, by your argument, I should not have the right to choose the client I wish and send this e-mail however the fsck I want? Sorry, as Derek stated, outgoing SMTP does not a server make :) I agree with this entirely, but the issue here really isn't running servers. It is about blocking IP ranges. AOL is not enforcing comcast's TOS, but rather trying to protect themselves from the cost of spam. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:34:19 EST Jason Stephenson said: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> But I can write a program to directly >> connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and >> technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm >> doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol >> for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet, by your argument, I should not have the >> right to choose the client I wish and send this e-mail however the >> fsck I want? Sorry, as Derek stated, outgoing SMTP does not a server >> make :) > >I agree with this entirely, but the issue here really isn't running >servers. It is about blocking IP ranges. AOL is not enforcing comcast's >TOS, but rather trying to protect themselves from the cost of spam. I understand that, and they absolutely have the right to do so. My point was that Kenny was arguing that the people being persecuted in this case were merely being forced to live with an agreement they signed. Which is not even close to the truth, since there is nothing in the TOS which states that Comcast users must use their relays. So, though AOL has every right to do what they want in this case, those being affected are not only those who are violating a completely irrellevent TOS clause, they are anyone who wishes to send e-mail directly without going though a relay. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Well, there is SMTP AUTH. However, SMTP AUTH only authenicates a user to a local SMTP server. It is not the global PGP authentication suggested in another email. AOL's moves makes me wonder if they would like a model where either computer is authenicated to a "trusted" SMTP server, and only trusted SMTP servers can exchange mail. That's close to what they are doing -- they don't "trust" your residentially-based dynamic-IP-addressed SMTP server (or client, if you will), but they are willing to take mail from Comcast's server. Anyway, just a quick comment. I'm not taking sides in this one. :-) Actually, I'm finding the debate quite interesting. -- Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - "The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." I can't understand why it won't work on my Linux computer." -- Humorix (http://i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Jeff Kinz wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:24:01AM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: they must block ranges from the lists. Why? No they don't have to. They decided to based on costs. They can dynamically block individual IP's Look, if an IP is on a "dialup list." That implies it will change every time a computer connects to the net. This is how most dialup, cable and residential DSL connections work. AOL has no way of "dynamically" blocking spamming IPs from a given net block. They can run filters that check each mail as it arrives, but this is expensive. It is more efficient just to say, we've gotten spam from IPs in this net block. The net block owner says they're dynamically assigned, so let's block 'em all. So because AOL isn't smart enough to deal with spam in an automated cost effective fashion it becomes OK to harm people who haven't done anything wrong. Nope - fails the integrity of principle test for me. It's not a question of being "smart enough," it's a question of technology and resources. If you really know of a way to selectively block IPs from a dynamic net block, then by all means share the source code and enlighten the rest of us. They are dealing with it dynamically. I'm sure they're running spam filters in addition to IP blocking. BTW, from what I can tell AOL doesn't run sendmail. They use their own MTA that bridges between SMTP and their internal email protocols. As someone that has had to deal with spam on a daily basis (I helped admin the mail server for the College of Engineering at the University of KY), I understand completely where AOL is coming from on this, and if I were in their shoes, I'd most definitely do the same thing. If I were in their shoes I would use a Bayesian filtering system that would automatically block individual IP's that are spamming. We did that. CoE at U.K. runs SpamAssassin or did when I left in July. What the filters don't catch are undeliverable messages, which are usually but not always spam. It's not a punishment. It's a business decision. AOL decided that they can't afford to filter spam from this IP block, so they simply block them all. It makes perfect sense. Only if you believe it is OK to damage (even slightly) innocent parties. You aren't being damaged. You can still send them mail. (You're starting to remind me of my two-year-old daughter when she can't have a cookie because she has to eat her lunch first.) You do have choices. You can switch to DSL with an ISP who will allow you to run servers, and whose IPs are not on a blaclist or a dialup list. Then you can connect directly to AOL's SMTP servers and spam them all you like. If you can't get DSL where you live, then you can move. You could also pay for a T1. You could use your ISP's mail server. You Fine. I'd like to get a T1 - since I can't afford it I assume that you have volunteered to pay for it correct? Just saying that somebody has a choice doesn't mean they actually have that choice. No, I said some of the choices aren't viable. I never said you could afford a T1. The opportunity to get one is there, and that is all that matters. You have the freedom to make choices within your circumstances. If you don't like the choices that your current circumstances offer, then you must change your circumstances. On the other hand I suppose I could sue AOL for any costs/loss I incur from moving to a place where I can get an unblocked connection. Its a stretch but I'll bet Johnnie Cochran could make it work. "If its a bit, you must transmit!" :-) Ha! That's funny. Sure, you can sue, but you'd lose. AOL has no obligation to you, none whatsoever. They are not a common carrier nor a public utility, neither is the Internet as a whole. have plenty of choices, though not all of them may be viable depending on your circumstances. And for many people none of them are viable. True, but the choices are still there. Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its customers. Actually, phone companies may have that right. They've never tried it. Any phone company that arbitrarily decided to not let your call go thru would be severely fined. That is already well established. Yes a phone company is a "common carrier." The Internet is not currently under any common carrier restrictions. It is a collection of private networks that agree to transmit messages among each other according to certain protocols. The Internet is not your phone company. Fact is, though, we aren't talking about phone service, we're talking about email. After all, I'm free not to answer my phone, and when I don't the phone company's cost of that call is practically nil. If AOL has to accept spam from evey open relay on the net, then there is a definite economic cost in bandwidth, disk space, and aministrator overhead. Mos
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Kevin D. Clark wrote: Spammers are like litterbugs. When I see litter, I pick it up. If I see enough garbage, I complain. If the spammer continues this practice, and gets find and or imprisoned, I say that's a good start. But I don't think that putting on rose-colored glasses and ignoring the problem (filtering) is the ultimate right answer. I don't think the current measures are working, either. I just like most of the proposals I've heard even less. Spammers don't need to go to jail. I'd rather live with the cost of filtering and IP blocking than have to deal with the consequences of a law enforcement regime imposed on email. The world needs less fascism, not more. It scares me that America has become the land where people say, "there oughta be a law," before the go looking for other solutions. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 01:02:33PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: > Jeff Kinz wrote: > > No they don't have to. They decided to based on costs. > > They can dynamically block individual IP's > > Look, if an IP is on a "dialup list." That implies it will change every I've had my "dynamic" IP for six months so far. I'm not part of a dialup block. > > If I were in their shoes I would use a Bayesian filtering system > > that would automatically block individual IP's that are spamming. > > We did that. CoE at U.K. runs SpamAssassin or did when I left in July. > What the filters don't catch are undeliverable messages, which are > usually but not always spam. SpamAssasin runs way too slowly to be worthwhile. But they have added Bayesian filtering too it and I expect that soon they will remove the other tecnologies from the package and realu on Bayesian techniques alone. > > > Only if you believe it is OK to damage (even slightly) innocent parties. > > You aren't being damaged. You can still send them mail. No I can't. I will have to change my system to do so. This is an expense of time and a risk due to system config changes (yes its only a small hit but the amount of the damage is not the issue) > (You're starting > to remind me of my two-year-old daughter when she can't have a cookie > because she has to eat her lunch first.) hmm - would it be OK for a 52 year old to have a cookie before they eat their lunch? I think you're just trying to be demeaning. > > >>You do have choices. You can switch to DSL with an ISP who will allow > >>you to run servers, and whose IPs are not on a blaclist or a dialup My ISp is not on a black list and I'm not on a dialup. I'm not running a server. If it makes you happy I'll even find and MTA that only runs when I send mail out. > > Sure, you can sue, but you'd lose. AOL has no obligation to you, none > whatsoever. They are not a common carrier nor a public utility, neither > is the Internet as a whole. Actually a class action suit would work if ebough people could be found to participate in it. My neihbor has no obligation to me either but if he causes me harm in anyway I can ask for compansation. > > Yikes - my undeliverable mail goes right to /dev/null, after appropriate > > filtering. > > (a script automatically adds those individual IP's to my firewall) > > If AOL did this, then it would not help your situation if your IP is > truly dynamic. Billy Bob gets the IP on Tuesday, spams AOL and that IP > gets blocked. On Wednesday, you can't send mail to AOL because the IP > address is blocked. Just tell me where Billy Bob lives... :-) > > Asymmetric public key encryption signatures can be used to certify > > that you did send a given email and can be used to prove you didn't send > > another one. If PGP cannot do this then another technology should be > > used. > > Only if you're a good faith actor. It cannot prove that you didn't send > a message that appears to come from you that isn't signed. You can argue > that you didn't send it, that it was forged, but you cannot absolutely > prove it. With a new mail protocol ALL mail would have to be signed or it wouldn't be transmitted/accepted. -- 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.
Lot's of noise but you're going round in circles here. The issue with comcast is a separate issue from the one with AOL. They are not related. Think it through for a minute. The agreement I have with you doesn't affect the agreement that the guy across town has with my next door neighbor. Mixing apples and oranges here. Dave M. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: > > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a > punishment? > It isn't. Whats happening here is that hundreds, possibly thousands > of people who do NOT have open relays cannot use a standard internet > protocol in the standard, approved fashion. Twenty years of internet > policy are thrown away because AOL/comcast are lazy. No. They have no other way to reasonably filter things out. This is a very good way to do it, really. Sure, it sucks. I sure loved having a dynamic DNS account setup for MY broadband box, and being able to send and recieve mail there. But they are sure not lazy. They just have no control. SMTP wasn't built for what it's being used for. Just like IRC. And there is no easy way to fix it at all without breaking backward compatibility, which is another biggie in terms of the internet and long standing traditions. > No - but proper cooperative behavior - which includes freely > exchanging > email, is part of the basic nature of the internet and has been for over > twenty > years. It is a fundamental characteristic which makes the internet > so valuable and useful. If it is abridged the entire Internet is > damaged. Sure. It's damaged. And shutting down telnet is just as 'damaging'. Disallowing remote shell access. Damaging. IRC servers crashing worldwide and causing mass netsplits due to a protocol whos time has passed. Damaging. But they aren't saying 'use Lotus notes or exhange'. They're saying 'We dont have a method to trust these IPs, so we're not going too'. > And this is not some vague, theoretical damage. Take a look at > "at Home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman or "The collapse of chaos" > by > Cohen and Stewart. The specific emergent characteristics of the > internet are > completely dependent on the uncensored nature of the flow of information > on > the internet. An entity as large as AOL can actually damage that flow > and in so doing will lessen the internet, eventually causing great > harm. Again. They are not stopping email from flowing. They are simply putting up a dam on a river that causes great floods every year. Does it effect the ecology of the net? Yes. Will the waterfowl who used to live in the swampland that the floods caused suffer? Yeppers. Will your house be in danger anymore? Prolly not. Can the waterfowl live someplace else? Yes. Should we dam the river for the greater good? No one knows for sure, but we lived there, and didnt want the flood of spam to fill our basements with water anymore. > Further more - AOL's decision doesn't fix the spam problem. It just > pushes > it somewhere else. Lets really fix the problem. Lets implement an > SMTP > protocol that contains embedded PGP Authentication. No more casual > anonymity. Good idea. Go too it. Make sure to make it backward compatible to millions of existing SMTP servers can still work.. > (Real anonymity has a purpose and will still need to be available > through > anonymous email gateways which are PGP authenticated) You just got done quoting some things which say that interference is bad. What if I want to be completely anonymous, as is the current system. What if I setup that open relay for just that thing.. > > It's not the spammers here. It's the open relays that spammers USE. > It's the > > people who relay. > So is comcast scanning for Open Relays and shutting them down/getting > them > fixed? No - they are implementing a policy that harms more innocent > parties than guilty parties You mean, actively policing the internet? You mean doing what the law now considers 'attacking' a machine? Actively probing and telling you whats ok and not ok? > Do we take away everyone's car because drunk drivers use them too? Do we subject them to active checkpoints with strip searches, and trust them to actively scan for whats considered good versus bad? > But I am not an unknown number - all my mail comes from kinz.org. I > am > available to be held accountable for my emails. > (And I have been, believe me :-) ) And my 8 year old son can get ahold of my credit card, and get a DNS name. DNS is NOT a reliable way to hold the contact liable for anything at all. > At the very least AOL should accept SMTP from registered domains. I > can > understand not accepting it from semi-anonymous dynamically assigned > IP's. And how, pretell, can they tell the difference? > (Come see the violence inherent in the sys-admin! :-) > (http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99mar/uf000427.gif) LOL. I didnt know Pitr worked for comcast? ;-) > > Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the > protocol has > :-) I'm not comparing the magnitude of immorality in the Pinto > decision to > AOL decision to block residential IP's. I'm saying its the same KIND of > thinking, "W
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a
> punishment?
> Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the
> broadband users who want to run their own services that are being
> punished.
How is this a punishment? It's saying, 'I cant trust you to run your own
power plant, so we aint gonna accept power from your possible at home nuclear
reactor power by old smoke detectors'.
> It's both. Many spammers are people with broadband connections,
> looking to use it to make a few extra bucks.
*blink* Elaborate? Are you saying this is GOOD or BAD thing?
> > Again, you're not being put in jail.
> So what? I'm still being restricted without having done anything to
> deserve it... It's still a punishment.
You've never gone so damned fast your car goes airborn while taking that
exit ramp. But you KNOW your being restricted by that 'Speed limit' sign.
> > They're saying, "I don't want you calling me". Tell me.. Anyone
> > here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers?
> Woah. Wrong. They're saying, "I don't want you calling anyone I
> provide service to." Since when is it OK for the phone company to
> block calls from telemarketers? You've missed the boat here too.
> Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a
> choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the
> service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its
> customers.
Yes, but in the phone companies case, they have the ability to shut OFF
service to people who might abuse it. In the case of the net, they have no
such ability. Your point is very valid though. They are making that decision
on behalf of their customers. Lemme stew some more on it. It's also,
however, causing massive overloads on many email systems, with a gazzilion
times more trafic then needed. Just REJECTING those emails takes trafic..
> > 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.
> Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go
> about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine
> the bastards for every spam sent.
And how DO you find them? Hrm? I can, right now, open a domain name under
your name, toss it on the net with a 'generic' IP, made possible by easy
access to the net, open up a telnet prompt, pipe in the SMTP commands,
and 'Poofta!' LOOK ME, I'm a SPAM KING!
> > They are blacklisting addresses of known open relays.
> Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some
> (relatively) few bad eggs live.
I dont think either of us can prove or disprove this one, really.. But I
highly doubt that there was a board meeting over repressing the rights of
consumers to lock down broadband services by restricting the acceptance of
SMTP connections from anyones living room.
> > Could very well be. But this is one move that, while being annoying
> as all
> > hell, is a viable attempt to securing something.
> It's still wrong.
Really? I cant finger someone, is it WRONG that they shutdown the fingerd
to lock down the box?
> > You know.. The same reason why some here always include their PGP
> signature
> > to validate identiy?
> No, very different. The latter is to provide information for those
> who may want it. The former is to block communications from an entire
> class of people just because it *might* be unwanted.
You're not being blocked. They didn't block your social from ever sending
email. They simply are ignoring packages from an address range that tends to
have a VERY high rate of mailbombs.
Sure, this sucks. And you now need to use a PO Box.
--
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.
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, I did not sign any agreement, and I accepted the service from
> the outset with an understanding that I would violate the terms, and
> that MediaOne would not do anything about that unless I became a
> problem child. I was basically told that by an m1 employee. So, I'd
> say that's arguable.
And when I got my licence, I knew damned right well I was gonna speed. Go
ahead, try that one. 'But judge, I never agreed NOT to speed'.
> We've already established that there is no such restriction. I can
> send out all the SMTP mail I want without violating the terms of my
> service agreement. I only can not listen to incoming mail. So no,
> that's not true. If you're going to argue the letter of the law, then
> I'll argue it right back.
And no where does it say you can use whatever protocol you wish for whatever
you like. It's their at their whim that they provide you service. I mean,
you do contracting if I recall, and have in the past. You provided someone a
service. Now, they're requesting you shovel the crap in the back yard. Ok,
bad analogy, but it's a funny visual.. ;-)
> I have not. I have only decided not to accept such mail for myself.
> Even if I make that decision for a group of people, forgery is a
> crime, and as such you do not have the right to forge headers. Not
> accepting mail on such a basis seems perfectly legitimate to me.
But how can THEY tell. Thats the biggie.
> > Woah. Wrong. They are saying "You can only call from a real phone.
> My phone is real enough for sending files via FTP. So why isn't it a
> "real" phone for e-mail? Just because you say it isn't? Who are you
> to decide?
And with ther proper hardware, I can hookup a phone on any standard
telephone pole. The service provider will know the difference, but you wont.
It's not a real phone becouse someone decided it wasn't.
> Terminate the spammers' accounts. Just leave me the hell alone.
Really? How do they know who the spammer is? And how does AOL force
comcast to do this, eh?
> > Uh-huh And when the spammer forges your name onto the headers,
> I'm
> > sure you'll pay the fine, too.
> You know very well it's possible to identify a forged mail. This
> doesn't deserve a response. You need to have evidence of the spam,
> which should be easy enough to obtain by seizing the spammer's
> machine.
Dude. Later on, I'll send you one. You tell me what my IP address was when
I sent it, and I'll give you a cookie. I can promise you it can be done, VERY
easily, in fact. I will do it, when I have time later on today. And I will
send an email to someone like John to hold as the information. Ok, Johns
prolly busy as hell, perhaps I'll just send it here. But it's possible, and
relatively easy...
> In my argument, the only bad eggs are those who have committed a
> crime, i.e. spamming.
But they cannot manually scan each and every email to see what was spam and
what wasnt.
> > No, you're not a spammer, but you admit to violating the rules and
> > running a server. So, everyone should be allowed to run an SMTP
> > server, right?
> Until they break the law. Yes.
Prove they broke it. Suppose someone on your local network masquaraded on a
remote network as your local IP, which is very possible, as we've all talked
baout before. How do you prove who broke the law? And by your logic, are you
gonna hand over your server when it comes in? Oh yea, and decrypt all that
PGP encrypted mail.. ;-)
> > Let m get this straight. Is the class of people Comcast subscribers,
> > Comcast subscribers that run SMTP servers, people who run SMTP
> > servers, or what???
> Those are all classese of people, yes.
Sure, it's a form of profiling. But not one that does any damage.
--
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.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> But I can write a program to directly
> connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and
> technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm
> doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol
> for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet, by your argument, I should not have the
> right to choose the client I wish and send this e-mail however the
> fsck I want? Sorry, as Derek stated, outgoing SMTP does not a server
> make :)
No, it's saying you cant use their servers as your SMTP server for sending
remote mail. You are NOT their client, their own clients are. Ok, the phrase
client is getting overused here, but one being a paid member, and another an
outside entity. They're saying 'I dont wanna talk to you directly, please use
one I regognize.
> But the rules do not state one single thing about how I have to send
> e-mail. There may be rules stating I can't run a private server, but
> a private SMTP server is for INCOMING SMTP, not outgoing. Outgoing
> smtp is from a client, not a server, and there are no TOS statements
> about which clients I can or cannot use.
Actually, the rules, from what I've seen and just read, promise basically jack
skwat.
> But the point is that the DO NOT put any restrictions on traffic
> eminating/originating *from* the residential connection, only
> connections
> *destined to, but not originating from* said connection.
Only one that is explicitly stated, yes. But they imply we're gonna do what
we want, and allow what we want.
> IOW, as long as the connection originates from my system, there is no
> restriction, since originating/initiating connections are *clients*.
> Incoming connections to a system, which are externally originated,
> mena the destination is a server, and *this* is what is restricted
> by the TOS, not the former.
So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? It's not
in the TOS..
--
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.
Quoting Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Comcast isn't doing anything to you. AOL is blocking your mail. When you
> got your cable service, you agreed to Mediaone's TOS. When comcast/attbi
> took over, your continued use of their service implies your agreement
> with the TOS. If you operate in violation of the TOS, then you do so at
> your own risk.
Actually, in some cases, depending on which company they came FROM, they
are. In some cases, they are blocking ANY port 25 traffic from leaving their
networks. port 25 > /dev/null if not destined for their own servers..
--
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.
Quoting Dave M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lot's of noise but you're going round in circles here. The issue with
> comcast is a separate issue from the one with AOL. They are not
> related.
> Think it through for a minute. The agreement I have with you doesn't
> affect
> the agreement that the guy across town has with my next door neighbor.
> Mixing apples and oranges here.
Nor did AOL ever agree to accept a NON paying members mail blindly..
--
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.
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > YOU are not in PRISON. They are saying, they aren't going to accept
pizza
> > deliver requests to your address.
> No, they're not. It's more like they're saying they're not going to
> accept delivery requests to my COUNTY. SO WHAT if I'm not in prison?
> You seem to think prison is the only way to punish somoene.
No, but you make it seem that way. Something you want too do is being
stopped by a company. AOL isnt punishing you for living there. They're just
saying 'This is our network, you wanna talk to us, use the proper channels.
> > UPS does this, if you recall. A residential address with too many
> claims
> > filed when drivers leave packages..
> Flawed analogy. You're talking about one address, when there's no one
> home to accept delivery, the driver doesn't leave the package. In the
> IP world, this is not a problem. Delivery is always accepted, or it
> will be retried. The only exception is when the server goes away,
> analogous to the house being demolished... In the case where someone
> is home, UPS delivers the package. Every time.
I'm not talking about the package, really. I'm saying that in general, SMTP
is blind. It has NO method of acking the mail, or verifying its addresses,
both too, from, bcc, etc.. So, no way to validate if someones home. I know
it's bad, but it just came to mind. UPS has this right, basically, so does
Comcast and AOL to do what they're doing..
> > True. But ignoring a block of IPs from SMTP trafic isn't propetuating
this
> > whatsoever.
> How does that help the consumer?
Where in their service agreement did they say they where there to help you?
They are there to get paid off of a service. Their services, both AOLs AND
Comcast, allow them to do whatever they want. This is what happens when you
are unregulated. There is no law stating what you NEED to provide.
> > Yes. I just heard about a corp raid on some DSL providers
> headquarters.
> > Good thing they had a really good decker to disable their security
> systems so
> > they could get in.
> That's all amusing, but not terrribly useful. Businesses fight wars
> with laws and with money. The Telecoms have been doing a very
> effective job.
I know, I did do it for amusingment factors.
But hey, dont like it?
Go start your own, Derek, it's a free country..
--
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.
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, but in the phone companies case, they have the ability to shut
> OFF
> > service to people who might abuse it. In the case of the net, they
> have no
> > such ability.
> Oh, you're right Tom, ISP's can't shut off their customers when they
> misbehave... I should have thought of that.
And I recall a conversation on this VERY list where someone WAS shutoff, and
the annoyed that was wrong to turn it off conversations that took place..
> > And how DO you find them? Hrm?
> You get their IP address. It's on the headers of their mail. Yes,
> even if they are forging headers. Some IP which is tied to them is on
> the headers. One of the SMTP hosts they don't control will record it.
Yeppers. They sure will. Let me send one later, I promise. Tonight..
> There's no such thing as a generic IP. You have to get your net
> access somewhere, and you have pay for the ISP account some how.
> These things will lead back to you.
Really now? We shall see, wont we.
> That may be, but it has a very low rate of offenders. And I'm not one
> of them, so how is blocking me fair?
It's not 'fair'. It's a profiling, on a technical level. No qualms about
it. And I want to finger your machine. Why wont you let me? :-)
--
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.
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:30:38 CST Thomas Charron said: > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? It's not >in the TOS.. This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a sanctioned protocol used by responsible people. Throwing in an argument about the result of stupid people (whether they know better or not) does nothing to furthur the discussion. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right?
> It's not
> >in the TOS..
> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire
> discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a
> sanctioned protocol used by responsible people. Throwing in an
> argument about the result of stupid people (whether they know better or
> not) does nothing to furthur the discussion.
Woah. How is one protocol use different then another?
Please, elaborate. Now I feel profiled. :-) I use samba quite often..
--
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.
Thomas Charron said: > > Actually, in some cases, depending on which company they came FROM, > they > are. In some cases, they are blocking ANY port 25 traffic from leaving > their networks. port 25 > /dev/null if not destined for their own > servers.. I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going anywhere other than to Comcast IPs. We got around it by using a non-standard port for SMTP, and it works like a champ, so apparently they only clamp down on specific IPs. NOTE: the host we were attempting to talk -to- is a host fully under our control, with no blocking whatsoever, so it was definitely Comcast's side that was blocking outbound. -Ken ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting Ken D'Ambrosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thomas Charron said:
> > are. In some cases, they are blocking ANY port 25 traffic from
> leaving
> > their networks. port 25 > /dev/null if not destined for their own
> > servers..
> I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can
> state
> authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from
> going
> anywhere other than to Comcast IPs.
Aye. I wanted to clarify only becouse there are TWO issues here..
--
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.
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:28 CST Thomas Charron said: >Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? >> It's not >> >in the TOS.. >> >> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire >> discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a >> sanctioned protocol used by responsible people. Throwing in an >> argument about the result of stupid people (whether they know better or >> not) does nothing to furthur the discussion. > >Woah. How is one protocol use different then another? > It's not the protocol that matters, it's the use scenario. We've been discussing using a single, user-initiated, protocol to make sporatic connections to remote servers. The argument thus far, has been about whether or not it is acceptable to prevent this action given that the TOS states you can't run a server. In you're argument, you're clearly putting forth that because the TOS does not specifically mention netbios, then it must be wrong to filter netbios broadcasts. This is a bogus argument IMO, because: a. broadcasts have no place on a wan b. netbios is not a wan protocol c. netbios broadcasts are usually the result of people doing things without understanding how to accomplish the same task in a better manner. >Please, elaborate. Now I feel profiled. :-) I use samba quite often.. And, correctly configured, Samba doesn't fill the network with broadcasts. Please provide a legitimate use of broadcasting over a WAN (which can't be done if the routers are properly configured). -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 14:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:30:38 CST > Thomas Charron said: > > > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? It's not > >in the TOS.. > > This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire > discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a > sanctioned protocol used by responsible people. Throwing in an > argument about the result of stupid people (whether they know better or > not) does nothing to furthur the discussion. Actually, earlier today, Derek claimed that there was no difference between protocols, and SMTP was no different than FTP. Also stated was that no one has the right to tell anyone what protocol then can or can't use. There are legitimate reasons for blocking certain protocols. Usually, those reasons have to do with protecting the network as a whole. So, if it's OK to block one protocol, why not another protocol? It sounds like protocol profiling to me ;-) C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state > authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going > anywhere other than to Comcast IPs. We got around it by using a > non-standard port for SMTP, and it works like a champ, so apparently they > only clamp down on specific IPs. NOTE: the host we were attempting to > talk -to- is a host fully under our control, with no blocking whatsoever, > so it was definitely Comcast's side that was blocking outbound. Many ISP's are doing this sort of filtering now. No outbound 25, no inbound port 80/443, etc. They claim that it is to protect their networks from worms and the like. However, I believe that they are ramping up for a new business model where they have different levels of service depending on how much you want to pay. C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:38:06PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > > > I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state > > authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going > > anywhere other than to Comcast IPs. We got around it by using a > > non-standard port for SMTP, and it works like a champ, so apparently they > > only clamp down on specific IPs. NOTE: the host we were attempting to > > talk -to- is a host fully under our control, with no blocking whatsoever, > > so it was definitely Comcast's side that was blocking outbound. > > Many ISP's are doing this sort of filtering now. No outbound 25, no > inbound port 80/443, etc. They claim that it is to protect their > networks from worms and the like. However, I believe that they are > ramping up for a new business model where they have different levels of > service depending on how much you want to pay. Strangely enough, I'd pay for it. But I imagine they'll charge me through the nose (read: more than 2X the cost) for it. In which case it won't be affordable. -Mark pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Jeff Kinz wrote: The emails are getting tooo long - I'm condensing from here on in. On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:09:12PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: No. You can still send them mail. You just must use another method. If I am not spamming why can't I use the methods explicity approved by the IETF? Why must I change my method because one or two ISP's refuse to behave in the proper cooperative fashion that has been the standard of the internet since its inception? You can. You just can't send mail that way to AOL. AOL has made a choice that they have every right to make. Now, you just have to live with it. You are correct, the spam does more damage than blocking IP blocks. but blocking IP blocks does nothing to change that and it 'Harms the innocent to punish the guilty". I don't believe in allowing this. Harming the innocent to punish the guilty happens all the time. This is why I am against law enforcement regimes applied to spam. There are too many innocent people in our prisons, we don't need more. Look, I still fail to see how you are harmed by AOL's decision. You can send mail to AOL's customers. You can still send mail to the majority of email servers on the Internet. Is your life in danger? Does it jeopardize your health or welfare? On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:09:12PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: Condensed" AOl is not part of the internet , they are a gated community" AOL's community IS part of the internet but this action is restricting the spontaneous flow of communication to the endpoints of that part of the network. Restricting that flow will prevent emergent characteristics from coming into being. What AOL is doing is retrictive. In order for the network to be valuable the communications must be as uninhibited as possible. Your claim in the next paragraph that "requiring AOl to accept mail from all IPs" is restrictive is so wrong it boggles me. How can unconstrained connectivity be restrictive? Is black white and white black? Did I wake up in Alice in Wonderland this morning? You may have, this is a LUG mailing list after all. :-) As for emergent behavior, what I learned in AI class was that emergent behavior is the appearance of intelligence in a larger system composed many agents each acting in their own self-interest or according to their own programming. They are not programmed to cooperate in any particular manner, though they may be allowed to interact in many diverse ways. By imposing this rule upon AOL, "thou shalt accept mail from all IPS," you are actually imposing an artificial restraint upon the system. You're interfering with the emergent behavior of the 'net more than is AOL. AOL, as even the small part of the 'net that they are, is participating in the emergent behavior of the 'net. Their decision to block IP addresses is just a part of that behavior. No - their behavior is killing a small portion of the net and making it less valuable and less emergent. I think your whole argument on "emergent" behavior is specious at best. I'm merely throwing it back in your face. When talking about emergent behavior, you're talking about a system with agents each acting independently. These agents perform actions which lead to other actions and reactions in other agents. The idea is that without any intervention from outside, these actions self-organize into behavior that appears to be intelligent. It really has no place in this discussion, but if you're going to insist then I'll argue it with you. I'm looking at the Internet as the whole of the system, all of the users, ISPs, software, protocols. Each one is an agent acting within the system. One of those agents, AOL, has made a decision which affects another agent, Jeff Kinz. Now, Jeff Kinz appears to want an outside agent to stop AOL from behaving that way. This intervention would wreck the dynamic of the Internet as I see it running. AOL as an agent is free to behave as it pleases. Scientifically, there is no "harming" of emergent behavior. Agents operate as agents operate. Their behavior is either viable or it isn't. Don't get too carried away with some of the theoretical stuff you read in books. We don't live in a theoretical construct, but in the real world. "Emergent behavior" is just one term used to describe phenomena that scientists believe they have observed in nature and in some digital an mechanical systems. Nothing more, nothing less. While it has become some scientists' pet project and they think it explains everything or that it is absolutely wonderful, just remember that as a scientific notion it is neither good nor evil. There is no limiting of emergent behavior. It emerges from the ineraction of various agents. People get in trouble when they try to apply this stuff to real life, and then make value judgments one way or the other, assuming that some things are going to harm emergent behavior and other things will promote it. Emergent behavior happens re
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:32, Mark Komarinski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:38:06PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > > > > > I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state > > > authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going > > > anywhere other than to Comcast IPs. We got around it by using a > > > non-standard port for SMTP, and it works like a champ, so apparently they > > > only clamp down on specific IPs. NOTE: the host we were attempting to > > > talk -to- is a host fully under our control, with no blocking whatsoever, > > > so it was definitely Comcast's side that was blocking outbound. > > > > Many ISP's are doing this sort of filtering now. No outbound 25, no > > inbound port 80/443, etc. They claim that it is to protect their > > networks from worms and the like. However, I believe that they are > > ramping up for a new business model where they have different levels of > > service depending on how much you want to pay. > > Strangely enough, I'd pay for it. But I imagine they'll charge me > through the nose (read: more than 2X the cost) for it. In which > case it won't be affordable. In some cases, it's not really that bad. DSL providers have been doing it for a long time now. They have different levels of service, each with different bandwidth caps and added services. My DSL provider's (Speakeasy.net) top package is about $110/month, but that is for 1.5M SDSL, shell access, dial backup, guarenteed uptime SLA's, etc. I pay $60/month for 768/768 ADSL. I'm allowed to do whatever I want with my service, as long as I don't break any laws. C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:45:30 EST Derek Martin said: >Hold on chief. I posed it as a question. Please don't put words in >my mouth. Wait a minute. He's far too young and short to be a chief. I'd rank him no higher than a squaw ;) >[Do I need to reiterate here that Comcast's TOS does not prohibit >outgoing SMTP? Hopefully by now this is clear...] I think one more time should do it ;) -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:42:14PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: > Jeff Kinz wrote: > > The emails are getting tooo long - I'm condensing from here on in. > > If I am not spamming why can't I use the methods explicity approved by the > > IETF? Why must I change my method because one or two ISP's refuse to > > behave in the proper cooperative fashion that has been the standard of the > > internet (Almost) since its inception? > > You can. You just can't send mail that way to AOL. AOL has made a choice > that they have every right to make. Now, you just have to live with it. This means every time I want to send an email to an aol address I have to reconfigure sendmail, restart it , send the email, then unconfigure sendmail and restart it again. Gee that didn't waste any of my time. :-) > Look, I still fail to see how you are harmed by AOL's decision. You can > send mail to AOL's customers. You can still send mail to the majority of > email servers on the Internet. Is your life in danger? Does it > jeopardize your health or welfare? It wastes my time. : This means every time I want to send an email to an aol address I have to reconfigure sendmail, restart it , send the email, then unconfigure sendmail and restart it again. Gee that didn't waste any of my time. :-) > > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:09:12PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote: > > Condensed" AOl is not part of the internet , they are a gated community" > > > > AOL's community IS part of the internet but this action is restricting the > > spontaneous flow of communication to the endpoints of that part of the > > network. > > > > Restricting that flow will prevent emergent characteristics from > > coming into being. What AOL is doing is retrictive. In order > > for the network to be valuable the communications must be as uninhibited > > as possible. > > > > Your claim in the next paragraph that "requiring AOl to accept mail from all > > IPs" is restrictive is so wrong it boggles me. > > > > How can unconstrained connectivity be restrictive? Is black white and white > > black? Did I wake up in Alice in Wonderland this morning? > > You may have, this is a LUG mailing list after all. :-) And its on the internet :-) > >>AOL, as even the small part of the 'net that they are, is participating > >>in the emergent behavior of the 'net. Their decision to block IP > >>addresses is just a part of that behavior. And so is my reaction to them. > > No - their behavior is killing a small portion of the net and making it less > > valuable and less emergent. > > I think your whole argument on "emergent" behavior is specious at best. > I'm merely throwing it back in your face. When talking about emergent > behavior, you're talking about a system with agents each acting > independently. These agents perform actions which lead to other actions > and reactions in other agents. The idea is that without any intervention > from outside, these actions self-organize into behavior that appears to > be intelligent. It really has no place in this discussion, but if you're > going to insist then I'll argue it with you. > > I'm looking at the Internet as the whole of the system, all of the > users, ISPs, software, protocols. Each one is an agent acting within the > system. One of those agents, AOL, has made a decision which affects > another agent, Jeff Kinz. Now, Jeff Kinz appears to want an outside > agent to stop AOL from behaving that way. This intervention would wreck > the dynamic of the Internet as I see it running. AOL as an agent is free > to behave as it pleases. > Scientifically, there is no "harming" of > emergent behavior. Scientific neutrality in obervation is admirable. But in this case we are the agents being experimented upon. We will not be dispassionate. > Agents operate as agents operate. Their behavior is > either viable or it isn't. However individual agents are harmed by other agents all the time. This affects the viability of the harmed agent. > > There is no limiting of emergent behavior. > Emergent behavior happens regardless of what you do or don't do to ^^^ > promote it or hinder it. ^ These statements are deeply wrong . It is very easy to destroy a network or an environment so that no emergent behaviors can happen. Formalizing communications is one example. Preventing change is another. Stopping communications is yet another. Preventing information from being generationally archived is yet another. How much exposure have you had to these concepts? I can send you one of my papers.. :-) > > Most of the internet seems to work "well enough". as soon as there is > > an artistic license source implementation of a properly working > > authentication system that ability could be fairly quickly added > > to the internet. Probably even faster than IPV6 :-) >
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Sorry to resurect this thread, but this morning, when sending email to myself at the World, I received a similar bounce. I have since added the world to my mailertable. I was wondering if anyone else had experienced a similar issue with the world. My address at the world is [EMAIL PROTECTED] The World is one of the more aggressive anti-SPAM ISPs. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
On 31 Mar 2003 13:52:34 -0500 "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote: > > > AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing > > cable, they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is > > Earthlink. > > Um, Time Warner Cable. AOL ownes Time Warner now. They are a competing > cable company, and I would assume that they have, at some point, > strung cable. I know the corporate structure, but I believe that AOL signed an agreement with AT&T a year or so ago. They are advertising in regions where is is little or no Warner Cable presense. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT?
> That argument is of the same mentality as, "Well, you live in the
> neiborhood where all the drug dealers live, so if you are wrongly
> imprisoned for dealing drugs, that's just too bad."
YOU are not in PRISON. They are saying, they aren't going to accept pizza
deliver requests to your address.
UPS does this, if you recall. A residential address with too many claims
filed when drivers leave packages..
"I'm being repressed! Just becouse my neiborhood tends to be used for fraud
doesnt mean you cant trust ME!!"
> And while most other providers of high-bandwidth connections are a lot
> more expensive, there are two types of high-bandwidth connections that
> are (more or less) universally inexpensive for consumers: broadband,
> and DSL. The problem is that neither are universally available, and
> more importantly neither market has sufficient competition. We have
> the latter thanks to government listening to the lobbyists for the
> large telecoms (like AT&T/Comcast), shutting out everyone else.
True. But ignoring a block of IPs from SMTP trafic isn't propetuating this
whatsoever.
> So, you can go complain to Comcast about anything you like until
> you're blue in the face, but they don't have to listen to you, and in
> general they simply won't, because they know they have you by the
> crunchies. And they're doing everything in their power to keep it
> that way.
Yes. I just heard about a corp raid on some DSL providers headquarters.
Good thing they had a really good decker to disable their security systems so
they could get in.
And dont forget abouty the missles hijacked and launched to shoot down
Direct TV's satalites..
Oh, and that Wifi tower in downtown nashua that they hired some black ops
groups to blow to kingdom come..
--
Thomas Charron
-={ Is beadarrach an ni an onair }=-
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
