On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 7:05pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think what the problem that people have is what they think the internet
> is..
Exactly. And regardless of what people *think* it is, the situation is as
I described it. You cannot connect to an intangible like the Internet.
You can
I find it helps to keep this in mind, when people start feeling their
"freedom" has been infringed because their ISP doesn't let them do
everything they want to.
I think what the problem that people have is what they think the
internet is..
For most consumers it's the web and email, perhaps
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 6:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I do predict that spammers will adapt to this new authenticated email
>> world rather quickly. Namely, they will modify their spam-cannon-laden
>> viruses ...
>
> That seems likely, but how much email is send from virus-attacked
> compu
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 2:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm basically on the side of individual freedoms and don't like that port
> 25 egress filtering is being implemented by broadband vendors.
Geeks (I include myself in this category) like to romanticize this idea of
the big, happy Internet
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was going to bring up MSA, too. It should be noted, however, that
MSA doesn't *require* authentication. Check out RFC 2476 for details.
The RFC does lists authentication as an optional feature, however.
I wasn
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 11:23am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Mail abuse. A great deal of spam and other mail abuse comes from
>> computers on consumer feeds that are incorrectly configured as a mail
>> relay (don't ask me how, but it happens more often then you would think),
>> or have been comp
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 12:15, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> I have a slight concern that my e-mail is going through comcast, but then
> again, if I really want secure I can use GPG.
In the [now] long and distant past, I had problems with them losing my
email. Sometimes it would never make it through. Th
t;
Steve> To: Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve> Cc: GNHLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve> Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Steve> Subject: Re: Comcast blocking port 25? (not what you think)
Steve>
Steve> On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
S
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:44, Bob Bell wrote:
> However, recently I was reading about SPF and discovered MSA. Although
> MSA may optionally do more sophisticated things, in a limited format you
> can run a "normal" SMTP server implementing authentication on the MSA
> port (TCP port 587), and no
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:56AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > >Why don't they just use Comcasts provided SMTP server? What is the
> > >real benefit of having them send through your server?
> >
> > It's always been setup that way..
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Travis Roy wrote:
> I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
> thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
> but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
> competition and limiting choice.
I hi
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:56AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> >Why don't they just use Comcasts provided SMTP server? What is the real
> >benefit of having them send through your server?
>
> It's always been setup that way.. And I think the comcast server
> requires some kind of a
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX re
Brian wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
Okay.. for the -LAST TIME- my parents are -NOT- I repeat are -NOT-
running any kind of sever at all, NONE! They are trying to connect to MY
server that is NOT on the comcast network to send mail.
(maybe it's already bee covered?)
Wh
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
> Bruce Dawson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
> >>I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
> >>thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
> >>but to block access t
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
> Okay.. for the -LAST TIME- my parents are -NOT- I repeat are -NOT-
> running any kind of sever at all, NONE! They are trying to connect to MY
> server that is NOT on the comcast network to send mail.
(maybe it's already bee covered?)
Why don't th
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:35, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> And I'm guaranteed that my IP address won't change. Ever.
Until, of course, it changes... I wouldn't give their "guarantee" too
much faith...
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
Why?
Mail abuse. A great deal of
Bruce Dawson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
competition an
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 11:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The solution is to add yet more and more entries into my mailertable file
> in sendmail.
Why don't you just relay everything through your ISP?
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
> I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
> thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
> but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
> competition and limiting cho
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
>>
>> Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
>> entirely disagree with the policy.
>
> Why?
Mail abuse. A great deal of spam and
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 10:52 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=>Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>
=>I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
=>thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
=>but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crush
IL PROTECTED]>
Steve> To: Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve> Cc: GNHLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve> Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Steve> Subject: Re: Comcast blocking port 25? (not what you think)
Steve>
Steve> On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:25am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
Why? They are blocking access to an
Steven W. Orr wrote:
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=>This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
=>server..
=>
=>Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
=>of my server.. one that is legit, has correct rever
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=>This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
=>server..
=>
=>Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
=>of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
=>
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:25am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 6:47am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25 of
> my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
>
> Has anybody else seen this?
More and more ISPs are blocking port 25 outbound on consumer
They might be blocked by an outgoing filter too. I just found that my
work does that. zonedit.com has an smtp test that gets to my server
Yah, but it would have to be comcast's filter. Since my parents don't
have any filter.
You could try tricks with netcat or iptables to redirect on your
>
Can anybody suggest a workaround.
>>>
>>>Run the mail server on a different port & redirect. *sigh*
>>>There are some services that will do this. i'm looking them up right
>>> now.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.dyndns.org/services/mailhop/relay.html is one
>
> That actually seems reverse of what
Can anybody suggest a workaround.
Run the mail server on a different port & redirect. *sigh*
There are some services that will do this. i'm looking them up right
now.
http://www.dyndns.org/services/mailhop/relay.html is one
That actually seems reverse of what I need, that takes stuff on port 2
Thanks for the heads up that this may be coming a reality.
Is your parents' physical location local to NH?
Goffstown, NH.. Retirement community off Goffstown Back Road.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listi
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:45:05AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> My parents use outlook and connect to my server. I allow the connection.
> They don't run a server.
>
> I just had another friend try to connect and he got thru also. Might be
> a local thing. I had a friend that got his port 80 block
>> Can anybody suggest a workaround.
>
> Run the mail server on a different port & redirect. *sigh*
> There are some services that will do this. i'm looking them up right
> now.
>
http://www.dyndns.org/services/mailhop/relay.html is one
___
gnhlug-d
Travis Roy wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running
a server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port
25 of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX
records.
Has anybody else seen this?
I've heard rumors of it
> This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
> server..
>
> Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
> of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
>
> Has anybody else seen this?
Damn, looks like mine is blocked
Mark Komarinski wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
> server..
>
> Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
> of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
>
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
Has anybody else seen this?
Can anybody suggest a workaround.
_
40 matches
Mail list logo
