Sorry to resurect this thread, but this morning, when sending email to
myself at the World, I received a similar bounce. I have since added the
world to my mailertable. I was wondering if anyone else had experienced
a similar issue with the world.
My address at the world is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:42:14PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
> Jeff Kinz wrote:
> > The emails are getting tooo long - I'm condensing from here on in.
> > If I am not spamming why can't I use the methods explicity approved by the
> > IETF? Why must I change my method because one or two ISP's
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:45:30 EST
Derek Martin said:
>Hold on chief. I posed it as a question. Please don't put words in
>my mouth.
Wait a minute. He's far too young and short to be a chief. I'd rank
him no higher than a squaw ;)
>[Do I need to reiterate here that Comcast's
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:32, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:38:06PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> >
> > > I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state
> > > authoritatively that it absolut
Jeff Kinz wrote:
The emails are getting tooo long - I'm condensing from here on in.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:09:12PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
No. You can still send them mail. You just must use another method.
If I am not spamming why can't I use the methods explicity approved by the
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:38:06PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
>
> > I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state
> > authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going
> > anywhere other
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:06, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I can state
> authoritatively that it absolutely blocks his outbound port 25 from going
> anywhere other than to Comcast IPs. We got around it by using a
> non-standard port for SMTP
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 14:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:30:38 CST
> Thomas Charron said:
>
> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? It's not
> >in the TOS..
>
> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:28 CST
Thomas Charron said:
>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right?
>> It's not
>> >in the TOS..
>>
>> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire
>> discussion thus fa
Quoting Ken D'Ambrosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thomas Charron said:
> > are. In some cases, they are blocking ANY port 25 traffic from
> leaving
> > their networks. port 25 > /dev/null if not destined for their own
> > servers..
> I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO has Comcast DSL, and I ca
Thomas Charron said:
>
> Actually, in some cases, depending on which company they came FROM,
> they
> are. In some cases, they are blocking ANY port 25 traffic from leaving
> their networks. port 25 > /dev/null if not destined for their own
> servers..
I'm 99.9% certain you're right. Our CEO
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right?
> It's not
> >in the TOS..
> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire
> discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a
> sanctioned protocol used by
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:30:38 CST
Thomas Charron said:
> So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right? It's not
>in the TOS..
This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire
discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate us
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, but in the phone companies case, they have the ability to shut
> OFF
> > service to people who might abuse it. In the case of the net, they
> have no
> > such ability.
> Oh, you're right Tom, ISP's can't shut off their customers when they
> misb
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > YOU are not in PRISON. They are saying, they aren't going to accept
pizza
> > deliver requests to your address.
> No, they're not. It's more like they're saying they're not going to
> accept delivery requests to my COUNTY. SO WHAT if I'm not in p
Quoting Dave M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lot's of noise but you're going round in circles here. The issue with
> comcast is a separate issue from the one with AOL. They are not
> related.
> Think it through for a minute. The agreement I have with you doesn't
> affect
> the agreement that the guy acr
Quoting Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Comcast isn't doing anything to you. AOL is blocking your mail. When you
> got your cable service, you agreed to Mediaone's TOS. When comcast/attbi
> took over, your continued use of their service implies your agreement
> with the TOS. If you operate
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> But I can write a program to directly
> connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and
> technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm
> doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol
> for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet,
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, I did not sign any agreement, and I accepted the service from
> the outset with an understanding that I would violate the terms, and
> that MediaOne would not do anything about that unless I became a
> problem child. I was basically told that by an
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a
> punishment?
> Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the
> broadband users who want to run their own services that are being
> punished.
How is this a punishment? It'
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:53, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2003 13:52:34 -0500
> "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> >
> > > AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing
> > > cable, they are piggybacking
Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT?
> That argument is of the same mentality as, "Well, you live in the
> neiborhood where all the drug dealers live, so if you are wrongly
> imprisoned for dealing drugs, that's just too bad
On 31 Mar 2003 13:52:34 -0500
"Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote:
>
> > AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing
> > cable, they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is
> > Earthlink.
>
> Um, Time
Quoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
> > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a
> punishment?
> It isn't. Whats happening here is that hundreds, possibly thousands
> of people who do NOT have open relays cannot
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:31, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> AOL is now in the broadband business, but they are not stringing cable,
> they are piggybacking on existing cable companies, as is Earthlink.
Um, Time Warner Cable. AOL ownes Time Warner now. They are a competing
cable company, and I would assum
Lot's of noise but you're going round in circles here. The issue with
comcast is a separate issue from the one with AOL. They are not related.
Think it through for a minute. The agreement I have with you doesn't affect
the agreement that the guy across town has with my next door neighbor.
Mixin
Time for my $.02.
When I signed up for my cable modem, I already had an internal network,
and at that time, Continental Cablevision did not disapprove of internal
networks. The then VP of Broadband Operations actually talked about
internal networks, mostly in the context of serving web pages and th
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 01:02:33PM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
> Jeff Kinz wrote:
> > No they don't have to. They decided to based on costs.
> > They can dynamically block individual IP's
>
> Look, if an IP is on a "dialup list." That implies it will change every
I've had my "dynamic" IP for
Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Spammers are like litterbugs. When I see litter, I pick it up. If I
see enough garbage, I complain. If the spammer continues this
practice, and gets find and or imprisoned, I say that's a good start.
But I don't think that putting on rose-colored glasses and ignoring
the pr
Jeff Kinz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:24:01AM -0500, Jason Stephenson wrote:
they must block ranges from the lists. Why?
No they don't have to. They decided to based on costs.
They can dynamically block individual IP's
Look, if an IP is on a "dialup list." That implies it will change every
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the protocol has
> no built in method of authentication, this is the best they can do. You can
> either eat spam, or do something like this. Period
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:34:19 EST
Jason Stephenson said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> But I can write a program to directly
>> connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and
>> technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm
>> doing, is running an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I can write a program to directly
connect to port 25 on any given system and speak SMTP, and
technically I am not running an SMTP server. Actually, what I'm
doing, is running an SMTP *CLIENT* which is using the PROPER protocol
for SENDING E-MAIL. Yet, by your arg
Derek Martin wrote:
SPAM IS AGAINST THE LAW. You should not be able to send it. But that
Where is it against the law? Washington State, parts of California,
Oregon, maybe, Virginia, Maryland, possibly. Show me where to get the
text of the law that makes spam illegal.
What's illegal are the fra
In a message dated: 27 Mar 2003 09:27:32 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:
>> Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the
>> broadband users who want to run their own services that are being
>> punished.
>
>
>No, they aren't. They are being forced to live up to an agreement that
Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
> >>Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the
> >>protocol has no built in method o
Jeff Kinz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a punishment?
It isn't. Whats happening here is that hundreds, possibly thousands
of people who do NOT have open relays cannot use a standard internet
protocol
In a message dated: 31 Mar 2003 09:41:04 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:
> So why shouldn't it exist?
>
>It shouldn't exist on the merit that the only mail servers that should
>exist on Comcast's network are those that Comcast runs. If the mail
>comes from a residential IP address, then it isn't o
In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:19:32 EST
Derek Martin said:
>It also says nowhere in the consitution that I have a right to buy an
>automobile that won't blow up when struck in the rear (to borrow
>Jeff's pinto analogy), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't expect it.
Huh, the pinto had t
>> Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the
>> protocol has no built in method of authentication, this is the best
>> they can do. You can either eat spam, or do something like this.
>
>Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go
>about the problem
In a message dated: 26 Mar 2003 12:26:11 EST
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said:
>The only way that the big companies will
>learn is when their subscribers start leaving en masse to go to a
>smaller provider because they are better.
Unfortunately, this means that the big companies will never learn,
sinc
Derek Martin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone
who is in close proximity to lawbreakers as long as your doing it to punish
lawbreakers?
S
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 09:19, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:05:56AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > > No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT?
> > > That argument is of the same mentality as, "Wel
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
Hi Tom, thanks for your reply - I enjoy the discourse.
> uoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi Ben, et al
> > Let me see if I understand your proposition correctly:
> > as I understand your logic above you are saying that i
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 08:44, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
> > > as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone
> > > who is in close proximity to lawbreakers
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 08:22, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> > Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here and
> > listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes do
Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In reality, it's likely that SOL is blocking mail from thos IPs to
> prevent spam. Broadband users are, unfortunately, a good source of
> spam. The AT&T/Comcast/Time Warner/@Home IP ranges are all listed on
> several RBL servers, for that reason. So t
Quoting Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> > Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here
> and
> > listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes down to: You ARE in IP
> > Space of known open relays. You AR
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> Ya know, I said my part. I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here and
> listen to this anymore. Here's what it comes down to: You ARE in IP
> Space of known open relays. You ARE in known residential space. You ARE
> paying
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote:
> This doesn't at all address my point, which is that if
> AT&T/Comcast/whoever they are today doesn't see fit to take action
> against me for violating my TOS, what business is it of AOL?
> Furthermore and more importantly, as Rob points out, outgoing SMTP
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:26:11PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > > Last time I checked, Comcast's "business" rate is more than twice their
> > > residential rate yet still suffers from the same "
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 13:22, Rob Lembree wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 12:26, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> > > Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST
> > > > If AOL says 'no
> > > > direct mail from this IP Space' b
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 12:26, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> > Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST):
> >
> > > If AOL says 'no
> > > direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I
> > > think
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:26:11PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
>
> While I agree with this whole-heartedly, the only way to change it is
> with money. Take your business elsewhere, ad when Comcast, or whom ever
> wants to know why, tell them exactly why. I dumped MediaOne (might have
> been A
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 12:38, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST):
>
> > If AOL says 'no
> > direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I
> > think they're doing the right thing. To ignore the problem only makes i
Quoting Ben Boulanger's email of Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:23:55 -0500 (EST):
> If AOL says 'no
> direct mail from this IP Space' because there's a known issue with it, I
> think they're doing the right thing. To ignore the problem only makes it
> worse.
I believe this has more to do the business war
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 08:47, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:50:01AM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> > On 29 Mar 2003, Scott Garman wrote:
> > > I clearly understand the spam problem, but this does not seem to be a
> > > reasonable
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Derek Martin wrote:
> forced into using resources that I don't want to use. My connection
> has adequate bandwidth to handle the traffic of my tiny little e-mail
> server, and I'm not a spammer. So I should not be punnished for the
> sins of others...
Like it or not, the int
This matter is of interest to me for a number of reasons and
very timely; I still have a lot to learn about email setup/admin
stuff and I was just about to ditch std.com (because of their
dainbramaged anti-SPAM measures) and switch over to running my
own server on my ComCast-connected Linux box.
On 29 Mar 2003, Scott Garman wrote:
> I clearly understand the spam problem, but this does not seem to be a
> reasonable solution to it. I could even see allowing individual AOL
> users the ability to set brain-dead, highly restrictive anti-spam rules
> like this, but not making a blanket decision
60 matches
Mail list logo
