subject:"Re\: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E\-MAIL"

   From: Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:20:40 -0500

   I think there is a reason the OP put OUTBOUND in all caps.  This isn't about
   running your own SMTP server at home, it's about using a non-Metrocast SMTP
   server to SEND mail to others.

Exactly.  *My* MTA doesn't allow connections from non-local hosts.
But in certainly expects email to be available on port 25 on the
Internet  And, since RFC 822 was one of the earliest Internet
standards, people have kinda grown to depend on it...

If someone I correspond with wants to MX all their incoming mail
through their ISP's mail server, that's their choice and their right.
But I shouldn't be forced, by *my* ISP, to add an extra server hop to
*every* email message I send.

   In the last 10 years I've been actively using an internet connection, I've
   *never* used my ISP's mail servers.  I've always had my own domain(s) hosted
   somewhere, and sent emails through my own servers. 

Given what Metroca$t has done, your setup would not work from my
location.  You'd have to configure your MX on a non-standard port,
because the traffic between my feed and the MX (even if you own it!)
would be squelched by my I$P.

   Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not be prevented.

I have to say Amen! to that... But I have to take it one step further:

Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not be
prevented, *just because your ISP does not consider you a business*.

Implicit in their restriction of outbound traffic is the insinuation
that residential customers do not deserve real, uncensored, access to
the Internet.  Since the filtering of port 25 does not exist on
so-called business accounts, this policy further implies that only
businesses are entitled to unrestricted *Internet* access.

   From: Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
   Subject: Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:21:24 -0500

   said most. And I stand by that statement: The number of zombie windows
   boxes on any given network is likely higher than the number of persons
   working from home on the network.

Minority does not imply unimportance.  I'm probably the only person in
the state of New Hampshire who can speak the language Lojban.  That
doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to speak it. http://www.lojban.org

   From: Python [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:29:37 -0500

   That's really just an excuse for not knowing the customers and their
   needs.  Port blocking, inbound and outbound can be a legitimate part of
   the service.  Inbound blocking provides a firewall.  Outbound blocking

In fact, email is *such* an integral part of the Internet, I have to
ask if, by filtering 25out, they are breaking their obligation to
provide something called Internet access.

   protects the neighborhood from incompetence.  However, the

Right.  But that's not my incompetence, and they're blocking *me*.  If
they blocked 25out per-IP, I'd be fine with that.  If I erroneously
got filtered, I could call and have the block removed.  But assuming
that all your customers are incompetent is arrogant and prejudicial,
not to mention rude.

   unwillingness to customize and tailor the service to fit customer needs
   is mostly laziness and the expectation that they can get away with it.

It's that latter part... the expectation that they can get away with
it that I intend to prove wrong.  And I believe together, we can make
them realize their mistake (and correct it).

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

   From: Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:27:05 -0500

Metrocast, last week, started filtering packets sent by their
customers to port 25 on ALL Internet hosts.

 Yup.  More and more ISPs are doing this -- generally the larger
   ones.  Get used to it.  It's not going to go away, because the problem
   is ultimately stupid people, and that problem is never going to be
   fixed.

The problem is ultimately stupid people.  I agree.  But, with proper
management, the actions of stupid people can cease to be problematic.
There are plenty of technologies available which -- singlehandedly --
could eliminate the spam problem.  This is a case of *mismanaging*
stupid people.

Despite Mr. Bradley's assurances that this is an effort to reduce spam
and protect me (yeah right) ...

 It is very much an anti-spam measure.  As others have pointed out,
   the *vast majority* of mail sent from consumer Internet feeds to a
   destination of TCP port 25 is spam, sent by compromised computers run
   by home users who install every piece of software the Interweb tells
   them to.

Most email *is* spam, period.  Blocking all email would be guaranteed
to block all spam, too.  But it's definitely a wrong-headed approach.
It's like chopping off everyone's thumbs in order to keep terrorists
from building bombs.

 I'm sure Verizon would be happy to help our group switch over to DSL.

 Verizon has variously employed outbound TCP 25 blocking and/or SMTP
   authentication for relay as well.

I have been working on some economic models which suggest that Verizon
(or any telco provider) would be eager to see Metroca$t (cable INET)
suffer.

 (A) If censoring e-mail constitutes curtailment of free speech.

   law  It doesn't say one damn thing about me or you.  A telco is
   under no obligation to provide you a particular kind of technical
   service.

A telco cannot, by law, prohibit me from calling the (615) area code.
They cannot legally install hardware to listen for and silence me
every time I want to say fuck during the course of a telephone
conversation.

 Tin-foil hat people, please note that they can monitor/log/whatever
   your email using a packet sniffer just as easily as using an SMTP
   host, so that argument is bogus.

This is simply not true.  It is much easier to snoop email handled at
the application layer than at the transport layer.  This is especially
true when *my* MTA connects to an MX that supports TLS.  Metrocas$t's
SMTP server advertises TLS capability, but it's broken.  (One more
reason why I wouldn't call their relay a smarthost.)  So doing this
forces me to send *all* email unencrypted over its *entire* route (MUA
- smarthost - MX).

 (B) If unilaterally making the change to restrict e-mail
 constitutes violation of contract law.

 Read your ToS.  It basically says they can do anything they want,
   and they're not obligated to provide any Class of Service.  If you

Well, first of all, I never received or agreed to any ToS.  But, just
as sure as I'm sitting here typing, Metroca$t *agreed* to provide
Internet service.  What I'm questioning is whether or not the legal
definition of Internet service includes email.

   From: Ed Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:18:13 -0500

   using their SMTP server?  They have always indicated web, FTP,
   and mail servers are not allowed on residential service plans.  I
   could be wrong, but I bet it was in the terms of service when you
   signed up.  If so, you really have no basis to complain they
   finally did something to enforce the agreement.

I don't think Metroca$t's lawyers would know a server from the holes
in their asses.  Most modern computer systems *are* collections of
servers.  If I was truly forbidden from running any servers on my
Metrocrap-connected hosts, I'd have to log out right now because I'm
running an X server (using X windows).  My computer would also be
depressingly silent, because I wouldn't be allowed to run my sound
server either.  I wouldn't be able to print anything, because I
couldn't run cups.  I wouldn't be able to ssh between boxes, because
that would mean running sshd.  And, without an MTA, I wouldn't have
any local mail.  I wouldn't be able to connect my Linksys router up to
the connection, either, because they have a web-based management
interface (which is, technically, an HTTP server).  Allowing a
customer to use an Internet connection and forbidding the use of
servers is like allowing them to use a computer, while forbidding
the use of devices.  It's a technically meaningless assertion...

   From: Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:33:44 -0500

 Of course, cable companies *are not* a free market, since they've
   been granted a monopoly by the local government in the local area.  I
   suggest that the solution *there* is to fix the root cause (granting
   overly broad monopoly power), not bitch

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

   From: Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:02:13 -0500

Metrocast is filtering ALL port 25 packets OUTBOUND from their
residential customers.

   While I understand your frustration, what they are doing is a
   pretty valid way to reduce spam.  If you're running your own mail
   server somewhere you want to

That's just it.  It's NOT a valid way to reduce spam.  Just like killing
junkies is not a valid way to fight AIDS...

   use, then you can run a mail server on an alternate port.  Lots
   don't block 465 (ssmtp) or 587 (alternate smtp).  In my case, since
   I can never remember

Clever.  I'll have to look into that.  And then tell all the spamsters. :)

   You could also configure your local machine to smarthost all email
   through your ISP's mail server.  The only problem here is with SPF.
   If you control

The only problem is that I have reason to believe my ISP isn't all
that smart.

   it is recognized as a valid sender of email from your domain.  If
   you don't control the domain, perhaps your company can build a VPN
   setup.  There certainly would be no problem with using the VPN to
   access your mail server, bypassing your ISP's firewall.

I have been thinking about tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 to some POP on the
(unfirewalled) Internet.  I figure an IPv6 provider is unlikely to be
as braindead as Metroca$t.  Think this'll work?

   From: Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
   Subject: Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:52:53 -0500

   On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.

 Sure it is.  Didn't you know that Internet access is a
   Constitutional Right?  ;-)

Well, Internet access isn't a constitutional right.  But privacy and
the right to cooperate are.  The Internet *is* a big cooperative.  And
not playing by the rules (not adhering to INET standards) hurts not
only local users, but the Network as a community.

The Internet stands on three legs:

 (1) Hardware,
 (2) Protocols, and
 (3) Cooperation

Without any one of these three, the Internet will crumble or, at the
very least, weaken.  Violation of protocols and refusing to cooperate
are what Metroca$t is doing.

   From: Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 18:04:11 -0500

 Like everything else in business, this boils down to return on
   investment.  ROI.

Yes, at the expense of integrity and social responsibility.

   From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:39:59 -0500

   Today, nearly everyone who wants Net access has it. Kinda like the
   TV. And if you don't have it at home, you can always get it at your
   local Library.  Those that don't have it are either technophobes or
   illiterate or simply don't see the value.

Not true.  Some of us are poor.

   If you are such a lazy bum as to be too pathetic to drag yourself
   out of bed and down to the Library, that does not count as a
   restriction.

What public libraries provide usually does not qualify as Internet
access any more than webmail qualifies as email.  Most libraries
will only permit you access to a web browser (IE, at that), forbid you
from using external media (like floppy disks, CD-ROMs, USB MSD), and
limit you to some stupid time limit like 60 minutes per day.  Not to
mention the fact that you can't get the full experience of Internet
porn in a public place ;) Library Internet is to Internet access
like Taco Bell is to Mexican food.  It just doesn't really qualify. :)

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

   From: Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:34:56 -0500

   If they are filtering for Spam on outbound packets whose dport is 25 then
   I think its probably a good thing.

No?  Content filtering is supposed to be done at the application
level.  Content filtering at the network level is just... data
corruption.

   From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:17:10 -0500

   I think it's a *bad idea* to send your email out across your ISP's
   SMTP servers, because you never know what they are doing with
   it. Plus, with the Homeland Insecurity pushing for more
   surveillance of us civilians, including pushing ISPs to archive all
   outgoing traffic for a month, you just can't trust your ISP to
   protect your privacy.

Yes, there are privacy issues which contraindicate using McISP's mail
relay...

 * Nosy sysadmins reading your email.
 * Sysadmins who are actually doing their job reading your email.
   (I don't care if you're clearing the mail queue or not; you *don't*
   have to know what my girlfriend thinks about my ED.)
 * Systematic email monitoring/scanning/blocking/archiving/reporting.
 * TOSs often explicitly allow for disclosure *without* a warrant.
 * Malicious employees can steal information (I've seen this one firsthand).
 * Malicious employees can alter/destroy information.
 * ISPs don't necessarily take all the security precautions you would.

But, besides privacy, there are MANY MANY other reasons an email user
might not want to use their ISP's smarthost:

 * Your ISP may not relay MAIL FROM: addresses not from their domain.
 * An ISP's smarthost doesn't necessarily have the VRFY/ident/retry/routing
   options which you want to use.
 * Email aliases, mailing lists, and address rewriting are out the window.
 * ISPs often don't bother to SSL mail outbound to the 'Net.
   (It would be interesting to see if Metrocrap is even trying to do this...)
 * ISPs have been know to have *almost* correct smarthost configurations.
 * ISPs have been know to have *completely broken* smarthost configurations.
 * Smarthosts have been known to lose mail.
 * Your outbound mail may be erroneously be considered spam/virus/c and rm'd.
 * You have no control over how your ISP's smarthost resolves MXs.
 * Configuring your own MTA can teach you a lot about how email works.
 * Not using your ISP's mail relay keeps you *in touch with* the current
   state of SMTP on the Internet... and not hide the Internet from you
   behind a relay.
 * Because RFC 822 doesn't say you have to.
 * You simply don't want to.
 * And on, and on...

 and on

 and on

 .
 .
 .
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-12 Thread Ben Scott

On 3/11/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think it's a *bad idea* to send your email out across your ISP's SMTP
 servers, because you never know what they are doing with it.

  You keep pushing this concept.  I've raised a series of specific,
technical objections[1] to the premise, which you have yet to respond
to.  Since you keep reiterating your vague claims, I guess I'll keep
reiterating my objections.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg12735.html

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-12 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:04:34PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
 On 3/11/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Since when has the government been interested in delivering service to us at
  the lowest cost?
 
   You do realize that the government and us are one and the same, yes?
 
 -- Ben

Ben there is some overlap, but they are most definitively not the same.

It would be nice if it were true, but if that were the case, why did the
government put itself in internment camps during WWII?



-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-12 Thread Randy Edwards

  So what the distinguishing characteristics between you and
  (presumably) me, and members of the government?

   Income?  Class?

   I'd have to agree with Jeff. There's no doubt that I and/or we have 
something in common with the people at the town hall and the typical 
bureaucrat in Concord.  But when I think about the make up of the US Congress 
-- almost exclusively millionaire lawyers -- and the entire way higher 
political campaigns/office is funded at all levels, it is crystal clear there 
is a distinct difference.

   Marxists would talk about the ruling class; sociologists about 
socio-economic status; business types would refer to people of means.  
Call it what you will, but this has been an issue for a very long time.

 Regards,
 .
 Randy

-- 
Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we 
choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose 
between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. -- Famous American socialist (and blind 
person) Helen Keller, 1911.

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-12 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:07:35PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
 On 3/12/06, Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do realize that the government and us are one and the same, yes?
 
  Ben there is some overlap, but they are most definitively not the same.

Ben, I've looked this over and at the thread where you previously
preached at me for using us and them (I was telling stories about
NSA work).

I've come to the conclusion that, for some reason, you have a
sensitivity about this nomenclature.

I'll lay it out for you once, but I will not indulge the discussion
further. Here is how I draw the line as you put it:

My distinguishing characteristics that identify the group I label
as government (in a general way) are as follows:

#1 An employee of the government
 or
#2 An elected official or representative

It perfectly reasonable of me to group the various government entities
[ Federal:(executive, Judicial, House)] State, county, municipal,
Agencies, and Authorities (MBTA, Turnpike) together in one group and
apply the label government to them.  I know labels can be misleading
and that the map is not the territory, but, being human and having only
a limited time on this planet I am going to use convenient labels
as needed to refer to groups of people.

When I need to refer to a more specific subset of that group, I will.

In the meantime please don't try to include me in the group
government.  I'm not in that group.  I'm part of the country.  I'm a
citizen, but the notion that this country is just all on big us works
in only a few, idealistic contexts.  Not the ones we have been
discussing.


Most of the remainder of your email dealt with how the government is
us because the government is made up of people and people everywhere
are the same, good, bad, purple etc...

Thats not news, nor does it deal with the issue.  The issues that
generated the original threads came from the fact that any group 
will tend to act in its own self interest even when those actions might
be harmful to the goals which the group was originally created to
achieve.  And even though that group might not be consciously aware
that they are so doing.

   Maintaining this delusion that they are somehow inherently
 different from us only creates further resistance, strife, and
 entropy.

Understanding the differences in the interests and motivations  of
different groups is essential to being able to effectively manage
or deal with those groups.  In no way does it create greater strife.
In fact it's an extremely valuable tool.

Don't assume that just because I identify a group as having a particular
negative characteristic that I only view that group negatively and
don't assume that I judge the people within that group as somehow
being evil or bad because they are part of that group.  The negative
(or positive) attribute is often only an emergent characteristic of the
group and therefore cannot be in any way applied to any of the
individuals of that group. Or used to judge an individual of the group.

Emergent characteristics exist only in complex systems made up of
sufficient numbers of individuals

   I find this behavior especially egregious because the same thing
 happens the other way.  When those in government start to believe
 they are *not* the same as us, the time is especially ripe for
 abuses of power, for lack of understanding, for bad deeds to be done
 in the name of good.  By perpetuating that way of thinking in us,
 you enable it for them.

Now you are talking about specific abusive individuals within 
the halls of power.  I'm definitely not enabling them.

History shows that there are always some people like this in the
government.  Recent history shows just how arrogant they can be.
The tapes of the Watergate witnesses appearing before the Senate
(I think it was the Senate..) are especially dramatic in the area
where you hear people on Nixon's Staff basically saying that the people
rights have been severely eroded so its OK to ignore them.

Those people exist entirely without any input from me.

 

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-11 Thread Fred

On Tuesday 07 March 2006 16:43, Ed Lawson wrote:
 On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:20:40 -0500

 Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not

 be prevented.

 I understand your sentiment, but should has nothing to do with
 it.  Should is not a
 factor. There is an agreement which specifies the service to
 which you are entitled upon payment for that service. You are
 entitled to nothing more and nothing less.

I send my mail out to my dedicated servers all the time over encrypted 
connections. SMTP has TLS and SSL options, and one of them goes across a 
port other than 25.

I think it's a *bad idea* to send your email out across your ISP's SMTP 
servers, because you never know what they are doing with it. Plus, with the 
Homeland Insecurity pushing for more surveillance of us civilians, including 
pushing ISPs to archive all outgoing traffic for a month, you just can't 
trust your ISP to protect your privacy.

Everything I do besides browsing the web goes across encrypted channels. And 
I could tunnel that much across an encrypted connection too, hiding even 
that activity from an ISP, but I don't see that much value in hiding it, 
even though I should.

-Fred
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-11 Thread Fred

On Tuesday 07 March 2006 21:12, Jeff Kinz wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:52:53PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
  On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.
 
Sure it is.  Didn't you know that Internet access is a
  Constitutional Right?  ;-)

 Don't laugh Ben, its already been seriously discussed.  :-)

 Access to information shall not be abridged.
 (Bujold, 1991, 358)

 And the way our technological society is moving, eventually we must
 ~somehow~ insure that everyone  who wants access to the net
 can get it it even if they can't pay for it.

 Why?

 One reason: It will be cheaper to deliver many of the government
 managed services to persons in need via the web than any other way
 and since some of those services are either mandated or court ordered,
 we (The taxpaying citizens), might as well get it done at the lowest
 cost.

Since when has the government been interested in delivering service to us at 
the lowest cost? While it may make perfect sense to us, the government mind 
does not think that way. Usually, the government has to be dragged kicking 
and screaming into doing things more efficiently and at a lower cost. And 
the *cost* of dragging the government there can itself be pretty high.

Nope. The government has a gun to our head on the tax side. And as long as 
that's the case, the government will never be interested in doing things at 
a lower cost. What, all they have to do is raise taxes! And we'll pay it or 
loose our assets, go to jail, etc.

 Another reason is that persons who don't have some net access will be
 (are!) seriously disadvantaged in a way that is roughly comparable to
 being functionally illiterate has been a disadvantage for the past 100
 years.

Having access to the Net is not the panacea for all those supposedly 
disadvantaged, if there is such a beast. Alas, one must be able to *read*, 
use the technology, and find what one wants. There are many people who are 
simply technology-phobic, and not necessarily in the so-called 
disadvantaged groups, either. I personally know of one or two who would 
have a hard time just using Google! 

And talk about being functionally illiterate, those that fall into that 
category are going to have a hard time using the Internet anyway.

Then there is my adage:

You can lead a man to knowledge,
But you can't make him think!

Today, nearly everyone who wants Net access has it. Kinda like the TV. And if 
you don't have it at home, you can always get it at your local Library. 
Those that don't have it are either technophobes or illiterate or simply 
don't see the value.

As far as Internet Access being a Constitutional Right, I'm a little dicey 
on that. While I hold that all should not be restricted from accessing the 
Internet, I don't want to see that turn into a we must give everyone 
Internet Access at taypayers' expense political ploy. If you are such a 
lazy bum as to be too pathetic to drag yourself out of bed and down to the 
Library, that does not count as a restriction.

-Fred
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-11 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:17:10AM -0500, Fred wrote:
 On Tuesday 07 March 2006 16:43, Ed Lawson wrote:
  Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not
   be prevented.
 
  I understand your sentiment, but should has nothing to do with
  it.  Should is not a
  factor. There is an agreement which specifies the service to
  which you are entitled upon payment for that service. You are
  entitled to nothing more and nothing less.
 
 I send my mail out to my dedicated servers all the time over encrypted 
 connections. SMTP has TLS and SSL options, and one of them goes across a 
 port other than 25.

Fred, I'm not sure I understand this. The thread is talking about
sending mail out from our own systems which is getting port blocked by
some ISP's.  You seem to be talking about sending mail out to your
alternate server (from which, I assume, it is further redistributed).

Are these the same things?


-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-11 Thread Christopher Schmidt

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 09:43:14AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:17:10AM -0500, Fred wrote:
  On Tuesday 07 March 2006 16:43, Ed Lawson wrote:
   Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not
be prevented.
  
   I understand your sentiment, but should has nothing to do with
   it.  Should is not a
   factor. There is an agreement which specifies the service to
   which you are entitled upon payment for that service. You are
   entitled to nothing more and nothing less.
  
  I send my mail out to my dedicated servers all the time over encrypted 
  connections. SMTP has TLS and SSL options, and one of them goes across a 
  port other than 25.
 
 Fred, I'm not sure I understand this. The thread is talking about
 sending mail out from our own systems which is getting port blocked by
 some ISP's.  You seem to be talking about sending mail out to your
 alternate server (from which, I assume, it is further redistributed).
 
 Are these the same things?

The quoted post that he replied to from Brian was talking about sending
through an alternate server. (Both topics were covered in this thread.)

Sending out mail over another port to your SMTP server is one solution
to the problem at hand, assuming you have a server to send it to. If
your only mail server is hosted on a home cable/dsl connection, I think
that you're likely making a mistake anyway: the reliability of these
connections is hardly guarenteed at the consumer level, so presumably
anyone hosting mail from home does have *some* alternative.

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-11 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:39:59AM -0500, Fred wrote:
 On Tuesday 07 March 2006 21:12, Jeff Kinz wrote:
  On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:52:53PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
   On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.
  
 Sure it is.  Didn't you know that Internet access is a
   Constitutional Right?  ;-)
 
  Don't laugh Ben, its already been seriously discussed.  :-)
 
  Access to information shall not be abridged.
  (Bujold, 1991, 358)
 
  And the way our technological society is moving, eventually we must
  ~somehow~ insure that everyone  who wants access to the net
  can get it it even if they can't pay for it.
 
  Why?
 
  One reason: It will be cheaper to deliver many of the government
  managed services to persons in need via the web than any other way
  and since some of those services are either mandated or court ordered,
  we (The taxpaying citizens), might as well get it done at the lowest
  cost.
 
 Since when has the government been interested in delivering service to us at 
 the lowest cost? 

At the level of abstract goals government is interested at being
efficient. The real obstacle to creating an efficient government service
is that there are few, if any, rewards for efficiency to the individuals
who actually supervise/do the work.   For example, in the business sector, a
person who is productive keeps their job and gets a raise occasionally.

The general public perceives that people in civil service don't have to
be efficient or productive to keep theirs jobs and get an occasional
raise.  (I can't speak either way on this perception as I have no data).
People in business have clear incentives to change: money and jobs.

 While it may make perfect sense to us, the government mind 
 does not think that way. Usually, the government has to be dragged kicking 
 and screaming into doing things more efficiently and at a lower cost. And 
 the *cost* of dragging the government there can itself be pretty high.

Individuals have to be dragged into change unless they see a clear
benefit to themselves in the change.  This is a basic human trait.
Change is uncomfortable, people avoid discomfort unless they perceive an
advantage on the other side of the change.  

Remember, both change and Linux are inevitable.  :-)

 
  Another reason is that persons who don't have some net access will be
  (are!) seriously disadvantaged in a way that is roughly comparable to
  being functionally illiterate has been a disadvantage for the past 100
  years.
 
 Having access to the Net is not the panacea for all those supposedly 
 disadvantaged, if there is such a beast. Alas, one must be able to *read*, 
 use the technology, and find what one wants. There are many people who are 
 simply technology-phobic, and not necessarily in the so-called 
 disadvantaged groups, either. I personally know of one or two who would 
 have a hard time just using Google! 



The phrase was will be.  In the near future our entire society will
be radically transformed by the level of connectedness and information
access instantly available to large portions of humanity.  Those
portions which lack sufficient levels of access and connectedness will
be at a distinct disadvantage economically and socially.  And, as it
turns out, social connectedness is a direct contributor to economic
proficiency so it's a double curse.

The level of the changes coming are both much more and much less radical
than we can appreciate at this time.  The unintended consequences will
not be apparent until, or possibly much after, they have arrived.

One example - still not much known today, the great crime rate drop of
the 80' and 90's was caused not by burgeoning economic times or great
social programs.  They were caused by the women suddenly being able to
freely obtain an abortion. (Freakonomics, Levitt  Dubner, 2005.)

Heard from my own kids:
Daddy, what's a 'phone dial'? 
Daddy, what's a 'record player'? 

Heard from my Great grandfather as he drove through the wall of the barn
in 1920-something the day my grandfather was trying to teach him to
drive:  Whoa!

 And talk about being functionally illiterate, those that fall into that 
 category are going to have a hard time using the Internet anyway.

Thats wasn't the point.  The point was that the disadvantages of each
are roughly analogous.. and you're wrong.

Computer technology is actually going make illiteracy less of a problem
in at least two very different ways, possibly more. Think about it.

 Then there is my adage:
 You can lead a man to knowledge,
 But you can't make him think!
s/knowledge/college/  :-)


 Today, nearly everyone who wants Net access has it. Kinda like the TV. And if 
 you don't have it at home, you can always get it at your local Library. 
 Those that don't have it are either technophobes or illiterate or simply 
 don't see the value.

The description of local library being called internet access is

Gov't , economics and technology (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-11 Thread Kuni Tetsu

--- Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Since when has the government been interested in delivering service to us
at 
  the lowest cost? 
 
 At the level of abstract goals government is interested at being
 efficient. The real obstacle to creating an efficient government service
 is that there are few, if any, rewards for efficiency to the individuals
 who actually supervise/do the work.   For example, in the business sector, a
 person who is productive keeps their job and gets a raise occasionally.
 
 The general public perceives that people in civil service don't have to
 be efficient or productive to keep theirs jobs and get an occasional
 raise.  (I can't speak either way on this perception as I have no data).
 People in business have clear incentives to change: money and jobs.

Gov't employees (at least at the uncivil servant level) are all union members.
In general, you don't get merit pay, you only get raises based on years served.
The longer you are an employee, the more you make. Promotions are another way
to make more money, but those are based on someone above you retiring.

As such, they have 0 incentive to be move efficient, unless there is a pending
promotion. Being human beings, they have a built in incentive to make their
life easier so they do things to customers to lighten their day, show their
power, and otherwise make THEIR day better.

My wife worked for the DOT for a while. She was actually reprimanded for being
TOO efficient and thus making the rest of the slackers look bad.

I would love to hear counterpoints to this observed and annecdoted theorum. And
yes, I understand that the plural of annecdote is not data :)

Policy makers do make noises about lowest cost providers and budget
consrtaints, but no gov't beaurocracy is more efficient than the dreaded
Private Sector. There you can get fired for poor performance.

 Individuals have to be dragged into change unless they see a clear
 benefit to themselves in the change.  This is a basic human trait.
 Change is uncomfortable, people avoid discomfort unless they perceive an
 advantage on the other side of the change.  

Exactly.

 One example - still not much known today, the great crime rate drop of
 the 80' and 90's was caused not by burgeoning economic times or great
 social programs.  They were caused by the women suddenly being able to
 freely obtain an abortion. (Freakonomics, Levitt  Dubner, 2005.)

Um. That is not the sum total. Freakonomics is hardly real science, let alone
good data. Yes, I have read it. I have also read what real economists thing
about it. That is a whole other thread and I will not bring it in here.

The rise of technology is definitely a factor, especially in the 90's. There,
we are at least back on a tangental thread.

During the 90's most companies were putting computers on the desks of their
administrators, and that helped efficiency a great deal. Although is it
anathema to mention it here, add to it the fact that most of said computers
were pretty monocultured, and all had the same interface. People could now move
from job to job or even company to company and not have to relearn a lot of the
tools used in their jobs. As such, they significantly reduced the amount of
time it took them to spin-up to speed at their new job and thus were more
efficient. 

The biggest road block I have seen to the acceptance of Open Office is the fact
that they do not have the same menues as the products they are trying to
supplant. That is not the way to get your product accepted. I don't care it is
is a more logical or better way to do menues. That is not the point. Note
that Word had a Wordperfect compatible menu mode for precisely this reason.
(Look on-topic bits!)

There were a lot of economic incentives as well. Reducing the tax rates meant
people had more to spend; people had to work to produce those new products;
Since those folks were now employed they thus had more money to spend, etc.
Snear and slap a label on this if you want, but this is pretty basic economics.
Unless you think Kensey is the end-all-be-all of economics. This is however,
not a thread for this list.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Gov't , economics and technology (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-11 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 09:40:50AM -0800, Kuni Tetsu wrote:
 --- Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several paragraphs of agreement deleted :-)

  One example - still not much known today, the great crime rate drop of
  the 80' and 90's was caused not by burgeoning economic times or great
  social programs.  They were caused by the women suddenly being able to
  freely obtain an abortion. (Freakonomics, Levitt  Dubner, 2005.)
 

 Um. That is not the sum total. Freakonomics is hardly real science, let alone

The book is written for the general public who are not economists or
mathemeticians.  The studies which generated the conclusions discussed
in the book are real science and well enough thought of that Levitt was
given a highly sought after fellowship at Harvard.  Levitt, while
unusual, and a popular author (very unusual for an economist) is a real
economist.

 good data. Yes, I have read it. I have also read what real economists thing
 about it. That is a whole other thread and I will not bring it in here.
 
 The rise of technology is definitely a factor, especially in the 90's. There,
 we are at least back on a tangental thread.
 
 During the 90's most companies were putting computers on the desks of their
 administrators, and that helped efficiency a great deal. Although is it
 anathema to mention it here, add to it the fact that most of said computers
 were pretty monocultured, and all had the same interface. People could now 
 move
 from job to job or even company to company and not have to relearn a lot of 
 the
 tools used in their jobs. As such, they significantly reduced the amount of
 time it took them to spin-up to speed at their new job and thus were more
 efficient. 

The best thing about governments use of technology is the incredibly
improved productivity rates have reduced the cost of running government
services so much that the government has reduced our tax rates to a
minor fraction of what they used to be.


Oh, excuse me, I must have been sleep-typing there for a moment.   :-)




-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Gov't , economics and technology (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-11 Thread Jerry Feldman

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Kuni Tetsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Gov't employees (at least at the uncivil servant level) are all union members.
Not true. 
In many government jobs, you do not have to join the union. I worked
for the IRS as a tax examiner, and we were given a choice of joining
the union or not. 

-- 
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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-10 Thread Python

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 21:02 -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
I'm CCing my reply to the list because it sounds like Christopher meant
for his question to go to the list.

Christopher Chisholm wrote:

I've been keeping my eyes out for an old laptop HD for a while.. I
really want one of those USB 2.0 enclosures on a small drive, but the
ones they sell are crazy over priced. I just want something like 5 gigs
or more for some music/work files.
Does anyone know of a good place to look for something like this? I
usually check e-bay the past few times I've looked there wasn't really
anything very cheap.

I've not seen very good prices on laptop hard drives. They always cost
more than 3.5 drives. About the only way to get them for cheap is to
take them out of your old notebook when you get a new one, or if you put
a bigger drive in your notebook.--I got mine when my old laptop stopped
booting.

I found some decent USB 2.0 enclosures at CompUSA. They're by Norwood
Micro, and look kind of like an iPod. They're white plastic with
aluminum cooling fins. Also, unlike most of the other enclosures I've
seen, they don't require a second USB power adaptor. It gets all its
juice on the one USB line. I've been using it for over a week now with
good results. They cost about $25.

I've been very happy with the HotDrive enclosure for laptop sized
drives. Nice solid construction and the same kind of power from the
computer as described above.

http://froogle.google.com/froogle_cluster?q=hotdrive+enclosurepid=4900696283346233720oid=13700690154894598748btnG=Search+Frooglescoring=mrd
(I paid $40 some time ago)
Mine has both USB and Firewire ports. I bought it largely for data
recovery purposes so that I could shift a 2.5 inch drive around with the
same ease that I shift 3.5 inch drives. My daughter has it right now.
She just upgraded her laptop to Linux and saved all her old Windows data
in the HotDrive.

thanks!

-chris

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
--
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-09 Thread John Abreau


Jason Stephenson wrote:

Ted Roche wrote:

At Monday's CentraLUG meeting, Steve Amsden was showing off LTSP. He  
said the laptops he was using were for sale in bulk for $240 each.  
Used beaters, and not cutting edge, but the prices are getting amazing!


Speaking of used laptops. My 6+ years old Compaq laptop stopped booting 
recently. After doing the usual perambulations and sacrifices, and it 
still not working, I yanked the hard drive and slapped that in a nice 
little USB case to carry about with me.


So, I'm in the market for an inexpensive laptop that works, and that 
would mostly work with Linux or FreeBSD.--If the crappy winmodem won't 
work, I won't care, so long as the hardware is still functional and it 
has working ethernet or PCCARD slot for my ethernet card.


I'm wondering if anyone knows of good sources for working, used laptops.


I've had good luck with eBay. I picked up an old Thinkpad there a few
years back for about $180, and it still works well today.

--
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux  Unix
ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-09 Thread Bill Ricker

 I've had good luck with eBay. I picked up an old Thinkpad there a few
 years back for about $180, and it still works well today.

TigerDirect has reconditioned IBM T23's for $500 -- used with some
protection and not a bad system.

--
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-09 Thread Jason Stephenson


John Abreau wrote:


I've had good luck with eBay. I picked up an old Thinkpad there a few
years back for about $180, and it still works well today.



I thought of ebay, but I've not used my ebay id in about 6 years, and 
I'd rather not go that route.


I found a couple sites today that sell refurbished laptops and they even 
offer warranties. Www.usanotebook.com looked like a pretty good place to 
go online.


I think I'll do some looking around in the Salem (NH) area. I'll check 
out Microseconds and PCMax.


It's funny, in a way. For $700 dollars you can get a brand new, low-end 
notebook, or you can get a mid-range notebook that is one or two years 
old that has better specs than the brand new one.


I'm definitely going the used route this time around, as it is not going 
to be my primary computer system.


Cheers,
Jason
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-09 Thread Jason Stephenson

I'm CCing my reply to the list because it sounds like Christopher meant 
for his question to go to the list.


Christopher Chisholm wrote:


I've been keeping my eyes out for an old laptop HD for a while.. I 
really want one of those USB 2.0 enclosures on a small drive, but the 
ones they sell are crazy over priced.  I just want something like 5 gigs 
or more for some music/work files.
Does anyone know of a good place to look for something like this?  I 
usually check e-bay the past few times I've looked there wasn't really 
anything very cheap.


I've not seen very good prices on laptop hard drives. They always cost 
more than 3.5 drives. About the only way to get them for cheap is to 
take them out of your old notebook when you get a new one, or if you put 
a bigger drive in your notebook.--I got mine when my old laptop stopped 
booting.


I found some decent USB 2.0 enclosures at CompUSA. They're by Norwood 
Micro, and look kind of like an iPod. They're white plastic with 
aluminum cooling fins. Also, unlike most of the other enclosures I've 
seen, they don't require a second USB power adaptor. It gets all its 
juice on the one USB line. I've been using it for over a week now with 
good results. They cost about $25.




thanks!

-chris



___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Tom Buskey

On 3/7/06, Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:52:53PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote: On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.
Sure it is.Didn't you know that Internet access is a Constitutional Right?;-)Don't laugh Ben, its already been seriously discussed.:-)Access to information shall not be abridged.
(Bujold, 1991, 358)And the way our technological society is moving, eventually we must~somehow~ insure that everyonewho wants access to the netcan get it it even if they can't pay for it.Why?
One reason: It will be cheaper to deliver many of the governmentmanaged services to persons in need via the web than any other wayand since some of those services are either mandated or court ordered,we (The taxpaying citizens), might as well get it done at the lowest
cost.Another reason is that persons who don't have some net access will be(are!) seriously disadvantaged in a way that is roughly comparable tobeing functionally illiterate has been a disadvantage for the past 100
years.Many (most) public libraries provide internet access now. For some, that's thier only access. Or through computers at school. My wife works at MCC and needs to remind people of this all the time. Her students usually don't have computers and can only use the college computers. Which are not available on weekends so she sends them to the library.
-- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.- Daniel Webster

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   Of course, cable companies *are not* a free market, since they've
 been granted a monopoly by the local government in the local area.

That's not exactly true, at least not in most cases.  Most
municipalities grant cable companies a NON-EXCLUSIVE 10 year contract
to provide cable services to the town or city.

What this means in practice, is that in the smaller towns you
typically have one cable company (Comcast, Adelphia, etc.) who is the
exclusive provider by default of competition.  In other words, these
small towns are a winner-takes-all situation because any competition
which could legally enter into that town doesn't think they can get
enough takers to make it worth their while.

If you look at the municipalities where there are multiple providers
(like Boston area towns with both Comcast and RCN) you'll find that
not only are the rates lower, but that there are enough people likely
to switch to justify a company like RCN coming in well after the
initial company is entrenched.

In most cases, if you actually read the town's contract with the cable
provider for that town, you'll find it's a non-exclusive contract.
The reason no one else has shown up to the party is because there's
not enough cake to go around :)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law 

Ahh, the 9 most beautiful words in the Constitution.  Makes you wish
they had stopped with that, doesn't it ;)

-- 

Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 This is one of several reasons I like Speakeasy.
 Static IPAs, no restrictions on servers or services,
 and crackerjack tech support.

Yeah, too bad they're more widespread, I'd sign up for them in heartbeat!
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Technical solutions.  Getting your mail to go through when your IP
 feed is blocking TCP port 25 outbound.

You forgot to mention RFC-1149 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html).

SMTP to port 25 will almost[1] *definitely* work this way, since
afaik, not a single ISP anywhere has figured out how to block this
protocol yet.

[1] I say almost simply because I have not personally tested this
 theory.  However, after having carefully, and painstakingly
 skimmed this RFC, I can come up with no legitimate means by which
 an ISP could counter-act this method.
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Christopher Schmidt

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:00:52AM -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
 Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Technical solutions.  Getting your mail to go through when your IP
  feed is blocking TCP port 25 outbound.
 
 You forgot to mention RFC-1149 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html).
 
 SMTP to port 25 will almost[1] *definitely* work this way, since
 afaik, not a single ISP anywhere has figured out how to block this
 protocol yet.

Using Avian Carrier signals, however, is equivilant to changing ISPs. If
you're willing to switch from Metrocast to BirdNet, you are probably
just as willing to change to another terrestrial provider.

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:07:35AM -0500, Tom Buskey wrote:
 Many (most) public libraries  provide internet access now.  For some, that's
 thier only access.  Or through computers at school.  My wife works at MCC
 and needs to remind people of this all the time.  Her students usually don't
 have computers and can only use the college computers.  Which are not
 available on weekends so she sends them to the library.

Yes, and there are some libraries in New England running Linux thin clients
to provide more seats per $ to the public.

Even better many public libraries are providing wireless access which
increases the number of seats even more.

Boston Public library is one of these and they don't mind when its
accessed from outside their buildings.

Now all we need are $10 laptops for general distribution.  :)

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Christopher Schmidt

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
 Now all we need are $10 laptops for general distribution.  :)

Not quite there yet, but getting closer:

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Drew Van Zandt

Happens I know the newly-hired IT director for a new library in the
New England area... any pointers to info on libraries using Linux thin
clients etc. I can pass along to them?

--DTVZ

On 3/8/06, Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:07:35AM -0500, Tom Buskey wrote:
  Many (most) public libraries  provide internet access now.  For some, that's
  thier only access.  Or through computers at school.  My wife works at MCC
  and needs to remind people of this all the time.  Her students usually don't
  have computers and can only use the college computers.  Which are not
  available on weekends so she sends them to the library.

 Yes, and there are some libraries in New England running Linux thin clients
 to provide more seats per $ to the public.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:15:17AM -0500, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
  Now all we need are $10 laptops for general distribution.  :)
 
 Not quite there yet, but getting closer:
 
 http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

Yes, that was my point.  A few years ago laptops were $2k- $5K.

Today you can get a really good laptop for $100 **

Negroponte's project is knocking a zero off that average.

So in a few years we can knock a another zero off the price.

(By then $100 will be equal to today's $10. :-))



** Yeah, I know, the $100 laptop will not be anything like what 
a $1K laptop.  I just enjoy the speculation and discussion. :)


-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:51:08AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
 Today you can get a really good laptop for $100 **

Should have read: 
 Today you can get a really good laptop for $1000 **

Apparently I have a thing about dropping zero's. :-)

 
 Negroponte's project is knocking a zero off that average.
 
 So in a few years we can knock a another zero off the price.
 
 (By then $100 will be equal to today's $10. :-))
 
 
 
 ** Yeah, I know, the $100 laptop will not be anything like what 
 a $1K laptop.  I just enjoy the speculation and discussion. :)
 

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Ted Roche


On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Jeff Kinz wrote:


Today you can get a really good laptop for $100 **
** Yeah, I know, the $100 laptop will not be anything like what


At Monday's CentraLUG meeting, Steve Amsden was showing off LTSP. He  
said the laptops he was using were for sale in bulk for $240 each.  
Used beaters, and not cutting edge, but the prices are getting amazing!

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Jason Stephenson


Drew Van Zandt wrote:

Happens I know the newly-hired IT director for a new library in the
New England area... any pointers to info on libraries using Linux thin
clients etc. I can pass along to them?


It just so happens that by day I am the Assistant Director for 
Technology Services (*yawn*) for the Merrimack Valley Library 
Consortium, which is a concortium of 35 Massachusetts public libraries. 
(Aren't you impressed? Not!)


Some of our members (at least 2) are considering getting Linux clients 
from a Canadian company called Useful. They've got systems that can have 
up to 10 monitors, keyboards and mice connected to a single PC and all 
being used at once by different people simultaneously. I imagine they've 
hardwired ptys to each video card/keyboard/mouse combo in the drivers. 
Yes, it runs X, and it comes with print management and timeout software 
(two things that most libraries want for public access computers).--I'm 
a little fuzzy on how much of that extra stuff is Free software.


They are going to be at the PLA (Public Library Association) convention 
this month in Boston. They're having a special demo. session with one of 
their customers during the show. (They invited me to come for a look, 
today.) Stop by their booth and I'm sure you can get the meeting 
details.--I'm not going, so I promptly free()'d that section of my brain 
when I hung the phone up.


As for what my Consortium uses, we have a mix of Fedora GNU/Linux, 
Solaris, and Winders computers in the server room at the central site in 
Andover. Desktops as central and at the member libraries are almost all 
Winders.


If anyone wishes to contact me about libraries and technology, feel free 
to email me at my work address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can pass that 
address on to your friend, Drew.


Cheers,
Jason
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Used Laptops (was Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL)

2006-03-08 Thread Jason Stephenson


Ted Roche wrote:

At Monday's CentraLUG meeting, Steve Amsden was showing off LTSP. He  
said the laptops he was using were for sale in bulk for $240 each.  Used 
beaters, and not cutting edge, but the prices are getting amazing!


Speaking of used laptops. My 6+ years old Compaq laptop stopped booting 
recently. After doing the usual perambulations and sacrifices, and it 
still not working, I yanked the hard drive and slapped that in a nice 
little USB case to carry about with me.


So, I'm in the market for an inexpensive laptop that works, and that 
would mostly work with Linux or FreeBSD.--If the crappy winmodem won't 
work, I won't care, so long as the hardware is still functional and it 
has working ethernet or PCCARD slot for my ethernet card.


I'm wondering if anyone knows of good sources for working, used laptops.

Cheers,
Jason
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-08 Thread Randy Edwards

  Happens I know the newly-hired IT director for a new library in the
  New England area... any pointers to info on libraries using Linux thin
  clients etc. I can pass along to them?

   A worthwhile resource for them would be http://oss4lib.org/ and its 
low-quantity mailing list at 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss.

   (But heck, they're librarians, they should be able to find that info. :-)

 Regards,
 .
 Randy

-- 
Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they 
make it easier to do don't need to be done. -- Andy Rooney

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Jeff Kinz

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 03:34:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  ------
  METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
  ------
 
 I just got off the phone with Steve Bradley of Metrocast's
 (http://www.metrocastcablevision.com/) technical support.
 
 Metrocast, last week, started filtering packets sent by their
 customers to port 25 on ALL Internet hosts.  Yes, you read that right:
 Metrocast is filtering ALL port 25 packets OUTBOUND from their
 residential customers.

I'm confused, are they :

Blocking?

   OR

Filtering?


You've stated it both ways, but they don't mean the same thing to me.

If they are filtering for Spam on outbound packets whose dport is 25 then
I think its probably a good thing.


-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
speech recognition software may have been used to create this e-mail
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Christopher Schmidt

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
 If they are filtering for Spam on outbound packets whose dport is 25 then
 I think its probably a good thing.

I would guess they are following the same path that Comcast and many
other internet service providers have followed before, of blocking port
25.

This is neither unusual, nor unexpected. And there's also the fact that
even if you could send mail out before, you were somewhat likely to be
blocked on the receiving end by things like RBLs that block dynamic or
otherwise known-residential hosts.

This is not technical incompetence. This is a decision that's being
made, which has numerous reasonable reasons behind it -- the largest
being that most mail going out to port 25 from residential connections
*is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run Windows, and
Windows does not use an smtpd running on localhost to send out mail (at
least, not in most cases).

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Ed Lawson



 On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 03:34:47PM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   ------
   METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
   ------

   Yes, you read that right:
  Metrocast is filtering ALL port 25 packets OUTBOUND from
their
  residential customers.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what problems do you have with
using their SMTP server?  They have always indicated web, FTP,
and mail servers are not allowed on residential service plans.  I
could be wrong, but I bet it was in the terms of service when you
signed up.  If so, you really have no basis to complain they
finally did something to enforce the agreement.

Ed Lawson
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Brian

I think there is a reason the OP put OUTBOUND in all caps.  This isn't about
running your own SMTP server at home, it's about using a non-Metrocast SMTP
server to SEND mail to others.

In the last 10 years I've been actively using an internet connection, I've
*never* used my ISP's mail servers.  I've always had my own domain(s) hosted
somewhere, and sent emails through my own servers. 

Sending an email through your own/alternate server should not be prevented.

 -Original Message-
 Just out of curiosity, exactly what problems do you have with 
 using their SMTP server?  They have always indicated web, 
 FTP, and mail servers are not allowed on residential service 
 plans.  I could be wrong, but I bet it was in the terms of 
 service when you signed up.  If so, you really have no basis 
 to complain they finally did something to enforce the agreement.
 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Christopher Schmidt

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:01:18PM -0500, Brian Karas wrote:
  -Original Message-
 
  -- the largest being that most mail going out to port 25 from 
  residential connections
  *is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run 
  Windows, and Windows does not use an smtpd running on 
  localhost to send out mail (at least, not in most cases).

 Not at all.  Anyone who has their own domain, or works from home and uses
 their employers email server for outgoing mail, is sending legitimate,
 non-spam email out on port 25.

I didn't say that *all* mail going out to port 25 fit this pattern -- I
said most. And I stand by that statement: The number of zombie windows
boxes on any given network is likely higher than the number of persons
working from home on the network.

In any case, as Ed mentioned, this is most likely against the terms of
service. Unless you're paying for business class DSL, most user
agreements prohibit this type of behavior. If you got cuaght doing
something you shouldn't have been, I don't see this as metrocast's
problem.

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

RE: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Brian

Not at all.  Anyone who has their own domain, or works from 
home and uses their employers email server for outgoing mail, 
is sending legitimate, non-spam email out on port 25.
 
  -Original Message-
 
  -- the largest being that most mail going out to port 25 from 
  residential connections
  *is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run 
 Windows, 
  and Windows does not use an smtpd running on localhost to send out 
  mail (at least, not in most cases).
 

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Mark Rousseau





If I use Thunderbird locally on my machine which is on this network and
want to send email to my Yahoo account. Doesn't it connect out to port
25 @ yahoo. Is this being blocked? That seem's strange. 

I understand blocking inbound port 25 traffic as that implies someone
is running a mail server.



Christopher Schmidt wrote:

  On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
  
  
If they are filtering for Spam on outbound packets whose dport is 25 then
I think its probably a good thing.

  
  
I would guess they are following the same path that Comcast and many
other internet service providers have followed before, of blocking port
25.

This is neither unusual, nor unexpected. And there's also the fact that
even if you could send mail out before, you were somewhat likely to be
blocked on the receiving end by things like RBLs that block dynamic or
otherwise known-residential hosts.

This is not technical incompetence. This is a decision that's being
made, which has numerous reasonable reasons behind it -- the largest
being that most mail going out to port 25 from residential connections
*is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run Windows, and
Windows does not use an smtpd running on localhost to send out mail (at
least, not in most cases).

  




begin:vcard
fn:Mark Rousseau
n:Rousseau;Mark
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
note;quoted-printable:-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-=0D=0A=
	Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	mQGiBEM9VPcRBADj93ND0XRLVi6juDnc6BcjSrN20pHOUS0pav3JOa/sEQAGlCSs=0D=0A=
	pR3ridzpGG+7ipLDRFoqhQf8OGdn9W9QB3d+eM9JRhE5syF24y8uhoU+u+rH56cm=0D=0A=
	RNlnHcxalv3ql7PMdPDqItmOU0hQw4Clwsy00HEQ8x5GZYLAK0zMNUJUIwCg75DW=0D=0A=
	dotIS92rSdlKcYAzFBVQC18EANtFcvfwYOlT8IFrZ0D0O/M1gkhRBRbb6kGmREYC=0D=0A=
	0/CMCMMCp4gYWKTwVmeAn0naONr0E7z2ywPRZtjpFaX9lzvKBUSe+d548tIZvY4e=0D=0A=
	qxipQ2PXxEJnbTrNlcvOMsH5sJ9SZUev29374SMRAKVMtaILbMFNxbX1TioUFwrV=0D=0A=
	IdI2A/98Fghs5NfqBYxHhTUpgJZrph/PWrA4py4zi8wjEcf36mJgi7kcmixkIYSu=0D=0A=
	Nxc5E437o9KcazeYOQaykmwGS/JVe1uJHh0CCGCRADMe5FDYeYkK3pnbcrTuxn3j=0D=0A=
	TYN960G2QzOi3dYHyCcxDkhXGA6SoIfSzrnk0aOyBsFKnN50x7QmTWFyayBSb3Vz=0D=0A=
	c2VhdSA8bWFya3JvdXNzZWF1QHlhaG9vLmNvbT6IYwQTEQIAIwUCQz1U9wUJAeEz=0D=0A=
	gAYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJECpFacOaVcG3GoIAn0QEQVN4Eqy+=0D=0A=
	NzvDQ0DdTxdKrE7XAKClMnrRfo+8ZVju94bxFdpKwQ6XM7kCDQRDPVVJEAgA1Lpj=0D=0A=
	Ab/1sIXGofE+DY7Soml+rJdn6e/UCv1OFaGpe/l7IvDD+qEzbdYZLxgh3DJnabbt=0D=0A=
	USrHl4gqF31KieKv/2WnC/kqAEC8q0yBLOyiKfPM8PmqUErbB3Xi1uAc5A4gTrqY=0D=0A=
	l7zLmyV3eztYs3JE7QHpMKdDrZkngbGtmcC3Jy8pHJ04TBoGKzqQ4f2UeNHukxok=0D=0A=
	ag0KS5G4N9yH7gg7NYsmQCKRHZCIc6jn7Xm4xBXPeQC3EeHbDyF6cMLT94oeDuzv=0D=0A=
	YKuQfaU2zu4PQRuSvis7AC9dbBhU1eehT2FkGWpXUymaJ7MfOZ6fRSqtxtA9hIcz=0D=0A=
	3ITbtbzUvFiUuSa9zwAECwf+OL05tVRT0moWaP2xnQbjmIC0oC5tyEX7xh59IPB0=0D=0A=
	oi3WawbVBDKYBPQh20rl/QT9FF4k0v26SUlZ0cgMi6TrwrQw/ahGpn8yHhRhNjjX=0D=0A=
	GqBF9qaonvHmseQjmbtsF6eJ7uWnH/sjj+I7b2FHq92KV60qOauGWmjNZxRUVBhB=0D=0A=
	U6hdF+Eb8/7e5h4spsSERSHgZxS1ni2o8q+GAC79p4IpoGSyhee9WHs6TaUTY2Y2=0D=0A=
	t+9gG0GdQRbyFaCvVReKYoXtOW63SAQTQ5SxBvQRkljmhnUT+Li+n3Z9o23Gl3ZM=0D=0A=
	K8sQ1M535N3fPHhJOqOVYJPygf67kmFMCCBmfdwDucJluIhMBBgRAgAMBQJDPVVJ=0D=0A=
	BQkB4TOAAAoJECpFacOaVcG3/qQAnicNIF2XiV1bP9Ub83dtRr/DwBlUAKCJLf1G=0D=0A=
	YHZeznlmVKkRLF+xS2xxiQ=3D=3D=0D=0A=
	=3DbyuL=0D=0A=
	-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Python

On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 15:57 -0500, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
 This is not technical incompetence. This is a decision that's being
 made, which has numerous reasonable reasons behind it 

Blocking port 25 is expedient.  I'd hesitate to call it reasonable.

 -- the largest
 being that most mail going out to port 25 from residential connections
 *is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run Windows,
 and
 Windows does not use an smtpd running on localhost to send out mail
 (at
 least, not in most cases).

That's really just an excuse for not knowing the customers and their
needs.  Port blocking, inbound and outbound can be a legitimate part of
the service.  Inbound blocking provides a firewall.  Outbound blocking
protects the neighborhood from incompetence.  However, the
unwillingness to customize and tailor the service to fit customer needs
is mostly laziness and the expectation that they can get away with it.

-- 
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp

___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread Neil Joseph Schelly

On Tuesday 07 March 2006 03:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  ------
  METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL
  ------

 I just got off the phone with Steve Bradley of Metrocast's
 (http://www.metrocastcablevision.com/) technical support.

 Metrocast, last week, started filtering packets sent by their
 customers to port 25 on ALL Internet hosts.  Yes, you read that right:
 Metrocast is filtering ALL port 25 packets OUTBOUND from their
 residential customers.

While I understand your frustration, what they are doing is a pretty valid way 
to reduce spam.  If you're running your own mail server somewhere you want to 
use, then you can run a mail server on an alternate port.  Lots don't block 
465 (ssmtp) or 587 (alternate smtp).  In my case, since I can never remember 
those port numbers, I run a mail server on 26 and tell those that need to 
relay through me (authenticated of course) to use port 26.

You could also configure your local machine to smarthost all email through 
your ISP's mail server.  The only problem here is with SPF.  If you control 
the domain, you'll want to add their mail server to your SPF record so that 
it is recognized as a valid sender of email from your domain.  If you don't 
control the domain, perhaps your company can build a VPN setup.  There 
certainly would be no problem with using the VPN to access your mail server, 
bypassing your ISP's firewall.

This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.  If you know how 
email and dns works, then you can work around it very easily.  And if it 
still causes you problems, then as others said, shell out some extra money to 
get a commercial account.  At the very least, I can suggest that ProSpeed, a 
local DSL provider in Tyngsboro, MA gives me 1Mbps SDSL and a static IP fully 
knowing I have servers here for primarily non-commercial purposes and I'm not 
blocked.  They even setup my reverse DNS request without qualms.
-Neil
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

On 3/7/06, Jeff Kinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'm confused, are they :
 Blocking?
OR
 Filtering?
 You've stated it both ways, but they don't mean the same thing to me.

  It means the same thing to them.  They are filtering TCP 25
outbound by blocking all such packets.  Have a nice day.

 If they are filtering for Spam on outbound packets whose dport is 25 then
 I think its probably a good thing.

  The quick answer is: This would cost way too much for way too little
gain.  A simple port filter, while non-free on many popular routers,
is still orders of magnitude cheaper than a fancy intercept-and-scan
spam filter.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

On 3/7/06, Python [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 However, the unwillingness to customize and tailor the service to fit
 customer needs is mostly laziness and the expectation that they
 can get away with it.

  I seem to recall there's this theory in free market economics that
says if there is a significant demand for a service, it will be
provided.  Alternatively, if there is not sufficient demand, no such
luck.  The big provides see the rare exceptions as not worth their
trouble.  While I don't have access to their budget sheets, I suspect
they're right.  The profit motive just ain't there for them.

  How many people here use AOL?  I'm guessing few to none, because
they suck.  Yet they succeed very well in providing a barely usable
service to a large number of people who neither know nor care for
anything better.  AOL is more-or-less happy to let people who want
more go elsewhere.  Wal-Mart does not want to compete with
Neiman-Marcus.

  Of course, cable companies *are not* a free market, since they've
been granted a monopoly by the local government in the local area.  I
suggest that the solution *there* is to fix the root cause (granting
overly broad monopoly power), not bitch about how lousy the resulting
monopoly is.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Metrocast, last week, started filtering packets sent by their
 customers to port 25 on ALL Internet hosts.

  Yup.  More and more ISPs are doing this -- generally the larger
ones.  Get used to it.  It's not going to go away, because the problem
is ultimately stupid people, and that problem is never going to be
fixed.

 Despite Mr. Bradley's assurances that this is an effort to reduce spam
 and protect me (yeah right) ...

  It is very much an anti-spam measure.  As others have pointed out,
the *vast majority* of mail sent from consumer Internet feeds to a
destination of TCP port 25 is spam, sent by compromised computers run
by home users who install every piece of software the Interweb tells
them to.

 ... what it really does is block legitimate e-mail.

  You happen to be in a small minority of people who are competent and
running your own mail exchanger.  You are considered collateral
damage in the spam war.  It sucks.  Unfortunately, life often does.

 As e-mail is an integral part of having Internet service,
 this seems like an insane and completely, well, stupid thing to do.

  This does not effect the vast majority of their customers.  Most
people just use their local ISP's SMTP relay.  The fact that you are a
rare exception does not make them stupid.

 As a result, I'm forming a working group to organize Metrocast
 customers in a boycott of this now crippled Internet service.

  I assume you have already canceled their service?

  I'm sure Verizon would be happy to help our group switch over to DSL.

  Verizon has variously employed outbound TCP 25 blocking and/or SMTP
authentication for relay as well.

  (3) Consult attorneys in the areas of civil liberties and contract
  law to determine:

  (A) If censoring e-mail constitutes curtailment of free speech.

  Oh, please.  Get a clue.  You'll loose this one, big time.  First of
all, the protections of free speech are generally on what the
government can do.  The First Amendment says Congress shall make no
law  It doesn't say one damn thing about me or you.  A telco is
under no obligation to provide you a particular kind of technical
service.

  Second, they aren't censoring a damn thing.  You can still send all
the email you want.  You just have to send it through their SMTP
server.  This is a technical infrastructure thing, not a censorship
thing.

  Tin-foil hat people, please note that they can monitor/log/whatever
your email using a packet sniffer just as easily as using an SMTP
host, so that argument is bogus.

  (B) If unilaterally making the change to restrict e-mail
  constitutes violation of contract law.

  Read your ToS.  It basically says they can do anything they want,
and they're not obligated to provide any Class of Service.  If you
didn't like that, maybe you should have said something when you signed
up?

 Next thing you know, they'll be blocking port 80 and forcing us to use
 a SOCKS 5 proxy!

  Their ToS prolly already say you have to run Windoze, too.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-announce mailing list
gnhlug-announce@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-announce
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

2006-03-07 Thread John Abreau


Christopher Schmidt wrote:


This is not technical incompetence. This is a decision that's being
made, which has numerous reasonable reasons behind it -- the largest
being that most mail going out to port 25 from residential connections
*is* either spam or an exploited machine, as most users run Windows, and
Windows does not use an smtpd running on localhost to send out mail (at
least, not in most cases).



That same logic could apply to *ALL* email, everywhere. Most email, 
everywhere, is spam, and by that logic, *ALL* email should be completely 
shut down.


Blocking port 25 is not an acceptable approach in either case.

--
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux  Unix
ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really.

  Sure it is.  Didn't you know that Internet access is a
Constitutional Right?  ;-)

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

Technical solutions.  Getting your mail to go through when your IP
feed is blocking TCP port 25 outbound.

(1) Get an IP feed that doesn't have the restriction.

(1) (a) Get your provider to grant you an exception under you existing
service plan.  Most won't do this for free, but hey, it's worth a try.

(1) (b) Switch to a provider/plan/etc that doesn't restrict what you
can do as much.  This will often cost more, but often yields
drastically better customer service as well.

(2) Relay all your mail through your IP feed's local SMTP relay.

(3) Relay all your mail through a non-local relay listening on a different port.

(3) (a) RFC-2476 defines the concept of a Message Submission Agent,
or MSA.  MSA is basically a subset of SMTP designed for submitting new
mail to a more intelligent system.  TCP port 587 is the IANA reserved
number for this.  Authentication is generally required, thus this is
currently seen as not-a-threat for spam.  Many modern systems are
pre-configured to provide this service.  You may thus be able to relay
through another server, on a commercial feed, with minimal config
changes.

(3) (b) On any available host you have access to, configure a listener
on any convenient port to provide authenticated SMTP relay.  Many ISPs
which provide mail hosting independent of Internet feed include such a
service.  If your IP feed loves to block lots of ports, port 80 will
almost always work.

(4) Relay all your mail through a non-local relay listening on the
standard port 25, but use a VPN or some other tunnel mechanism to get
there.  This is useful if you have a configuration you don't want to
disturb for some reason, or just want to avoid the hassle of worrying
about what your SMTP relay should be depending on where you are.

(5) Use VPN/SSH/HTTPS/VNC/X11/etc to access a mail system running
elsewhere, and use that mail system remotely.  Your IP feed only
carries your remote access traffic.  Not usually what people are
looking for, but worth mentioning.  Webmail falls into this category.

-- Ben
___
gnhlug-announce mailing list
gnhlug-announce@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-announce
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Re: METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL