Re: [Re: Fun new policy at AOL]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:47:42 -0500, joshua sahala wrote: >i'm still curious to know how this mail will be automagically rejected... NOT automatically rejected. It takes an act of management will. That is the point. More comments in due course. Late now . . . caffeine and sugar levels low in

Re: [Re: Fun new policy at AOL]

"Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The proposal at provides that > mail from compromised sources shall be rejected. This forces the host > sysadmin to secure his system if he wants to communicate with the rest > of the internet. Pr

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:05:50 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: >> >It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust >> >relationships with each other and bypass the central

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

>How does this sound for a new mail distribution network. >Customers can only send mail through their direct provider >ISPs can only send mail to their customers and their upstream provider. Sounds like NIMTP. See Google for more... --Michael Dillon

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > It really doesnt make any difference, if you change the rules by implementing > auth etc the spammers will just adopt and it follows that the more thorough you > are in the anti-spam measures, the more drastic the spammers will

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Omachonu Ogali wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:08:52PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > > If this solution had been implemented 5 years ago instead of the "no third > > party relays" system now in place, I wouldn't be opposed to it... But the > > issue is that the "use the local

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:04:42PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at > someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type schemes > being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server. > > If someplace.edu won't

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:08:52PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > If this solution had been implemented 5 years ago instead of the "no third > party relays" system now in place, I wouldn't be opposed to it... But the > issue is that the "use the local SMTP server to send" model is the main one > deploy

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

Quoting "Vivien M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at > someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type schemes > being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server. > > If someplace.edu won't set up an SMTP AU

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 02:15:49PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > SMTP_AUTH authenticated users to a mail server. What I'm talking Postfix will let you do SMTP authentication from one mail server to another, and to address the person who said a school was brute- forced, this is from server to

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:19:28 CDT, Jack Bates said: > I wouldn't recommend a policy change like that for any user base over > 10,000. So you're saying that because you've got too many users with dumb passwords, that's justification for not fixing it? ;) /Valdis (and yes, we're in the middle of a

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the provider allows the user to pick an insecure password, and then complains that they can't support a security measure because of their poor policy choices/enforcement? You have an easy way to change password enforcement of an existing user base? Dealing with people

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Then why not just pay a Virtual Mail hosting company to host a mail server >for you via Imail or one of the other virtual email service packages out >there. It is very inexpensive most of the time. That way you have the >flexi

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

JC Dill wrote: Either the webmail solution meets your needs, or you need to obtain service from a company that offers a solution that meets your needs. Why is this so hard to understand? Or people implement a protocol that doesn't break existing uses of the system (let's not forget the issues

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

is hosted in a controlled environment (ie power, AC, network) et cetera, the benefits are endless. Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Roland Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL In article

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Omachonu Ogali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >In which case, the telecommuters should use their organization's >mail servers with SMTP authentication (yes, authentication, not >pop-before-smtp). I'm a telecommuter, I'm also a freelance, so my organisation is "me". I l

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Is this being added to a bind 9 rewrite? If so, when can we expected it to be released? :) On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:47:58PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or > > more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to c

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

> -Original Message- > From: Matthew Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: August 29, 2003 4:16 PM > To: Vivien M. > Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL > > Port forward 127.0.0.1:25 through to someplac

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type schemes being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server. If someplace.edu won't set up an SMTP AUTH relay, what do you do? Your dialup account will

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:47:50 CDT, Jack Bates said: > > Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > > You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat. > > > > Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their > users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam beca

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:45 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote: > > > And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what > > about if the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail > > package. Use that instead."? > > You switch service provider or give

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of JC Dill > Sent: August 29, 2003 3:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL > > > > At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote: > > > &g

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matthew Crocker > Sent: August 29, 2003 3:58 PM > To: Vivien M. > Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL > > >

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat. And if the "service provider" is your employer/educational institution? You quit your job? Drop out of school? Swallow your pride and suffer with webmail? Spend $19.95 getting a dialup account for an ISP with a clue and use thei

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote: > Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always. And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that instead."? Either the webmail solution meet

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat. Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam because your user had a bad password is not a good prospect. -Jack

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

> -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: August 29, 2003 3:44 PM > To: Vivien M. > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL > > > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote: > > > And what do yo

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote: > And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if > the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that > instead."? You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat. -- Mikael Abrahamss

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for email? Your ISP should support SMTP_AUTH with TLS for you. You would continue to use their mail servers no matter where you are or how you are connected to

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

[Note: I posted something else on this topic, but it doesn't appear to have made it through yet...] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: August 29, 2003 3:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] &g

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: > I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP > server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for > email? Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> >But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one > >or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the > >address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records > >for the domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one >or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the >address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Omachonu Ogali wrote: |>trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only |>accept connections from IPs it trusts. | | | Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into | reinventing the wheel, but what happened to consid

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only > accept connections from IPs it trusts. Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into reinventing the wheel, but what happened to consideration of SMTP authentication?

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or > more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the address > of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records for the > domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email addres

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On donderdag, aug 28, 2003, at 20:10 Europe/Amsterdam, Paul Vixie wrote: Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does. here are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like your example. another is that spammers do not follow the MX prot

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

At 08:37 AM 8/29/2003, Jack Bates wrote: Michel Py wrote: If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line theyshould provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't. The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle abuse complaints either. Just what do the

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:06:10AM -0400, Roland Perry wrote: > Here's another tale of undeliverable email. It seems that [at least] one > of those organisations you mention assigns IP addresses for its ADSL > customers from the same blocks as dial-up. Which means that > organisations using MAPS-D

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

>> Michel Py wrote: >> If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL >> line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most >> don't. > Jack Bates wrote: > The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually > don't handle abuse complaints either. True. sigh. > Just

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Michel Py wrote: If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't. The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle abuse complaints either. Just what do they do for their customers? I'm curious.

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

>> Michel Py writes >> eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment >> size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc. > Roland Perry wrote: > Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit > customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping > spamme

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Gary E. Miller wrote: Maybe if PacBell (and others) actually disciplined their more out of control DSL customers then other ISPs would not feel the need to do it for them. It doesn't matter. A large percentage of open proxies are on dynamic DSL. Since a lot of ISPs will not handle proxy reports an

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

Yo All! On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michel Py wrote: > Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a > single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that > occasionally are blocked because either the block is marked as > residential or the reverse lookup con

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:29:42PM -0700, Michel Py wrote: > However, trying to be pragmatic, this is a situation that will > eventually solve by itself: Since having {Pacific Bell | your ISP} do > anything about it is not an option, when these customers are trying to > email to {AOL | some ISP} a

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

Susan, > It just ticks me off because I know there are a lot of > others who will be in this boat. Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that occasionally are blocked because either the block is ma

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > >It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust > >relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL > >for example could require ISPs to meet cer

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:13:31 -0500, John Palmer wrote: >I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to >my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations other >than when I am connected to them. I have about 2 dozen e-mail >accounts defined in outlook express

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In the immortal words of Matthew Crocker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Given the way that most ISP "shared resource" machines (including but hardly limited to DNS caching/recursi

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: >It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust >relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL >for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before they are >allowed direct connections.

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Bob Bradlee wrote: > > Road-Runner pulled the same stunt with a chain of radio stations > I have as clients. We went ON-AIR with a NEWS story, and > recomended that everyone effected should call Roadrunner > or AOL. AOL contacted me, verified the problem, and had my > IP's whitelisted in a matt

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

At 03:48 PM 28/08/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote: > > Unless AOL is downloading the > >entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how do they know > >which IPs are dynamic and which are static;) > > What would BGP tables tell you about internal routing and DNS ? > It's 216.161.123.79 If

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > >> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > >> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? > > > > Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded > > (even temporarily) at someone's disk

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

Does the IP address of your client's SMTP server have a reverse DNS entry (PTR record) assigned to it? It seems to be a new "best practice" to not accept e-mail from an IP address that doesn't have a PTR record assigned. Furthermore, if those PTR records indicate anything like "dial" "dns" "cabl

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 02:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote: > > >WTF. This IP is NOT dynamic. The client has had it for about two years. > > What is the IP address they are rejecting ? > > > Unless AOL is downloading the > >entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:53 PM 8/28/2003, Tony Hain wrote: Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use > the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Look carefully at that question and find the logic error. ... In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'I

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> That's why we must encourage all ISPSs to be good guys, because we don't > want Government Regulators setting standards in these areas, do we? if recent activity in the VoIP market is any indication, then we here won't have much input as to when and how the ISP market gets regulated. -- Paul V

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use > the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Look carefully at that question and find the logic error. ... In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'IP' service, not 'ISP mail servic

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >If your ISP ... ... find another one. Great in theory, but the market is imperfect. Even if money (and the loss you'd incur from terminating your current ISP early) isn't the main issue. Many countries, even those with

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: > If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you don't > like, find another one. How do I know that? As a hobby, I'm running a community site for an often misunderstood sexual/lifestyle minority. Most of patrons would be very unhappy

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the > window by AOL in this policy change is "be strict in what you send, and > liberal in what you accept". that policy was wiser when everyone who could get an internet connection saw the merits of it. in an assymetric warf

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

gust 28, 2003 12:11 Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL > Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP > use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does. > > Something like > > crocker.com. MX 65000 trusted-mx.crocker.com. > MX 66000 untrusted-mx.crocker.com. there are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like yo

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded (even temporarily) at someone's disk drive. If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you do

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded (even temporarily) at someone's disk drive. --vadim

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Lesher Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22 AM To: nanog list Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using t

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 12:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:00:29 EDT, Matthew Crocker said: How does this sound for a new mail distribution network. Only a few problem here: 1) Bootstrapping it - as long as you need to accept legacy SMTP because less than 90% o

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct > access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies > for the services required. Good idea. I'll start working on the SSH proxy tomorrow. > -Matt --Johnny

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED] py.sacramento.ca.us>, Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >eating some >email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a >mailing list that way, etc. Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit customers to 200 outgoing recip

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail > servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some > email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a > mailing li

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Demon announcement was interesting to me as a subscriber. Historically Demon allocated static IP addresses to (nearly) all dial up users. For many businesses this was a cheap and effective way to have their own email servers running. For those o

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

> Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP > use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some email fro

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >There is no reason for a customer to have direct access to the net Unless that's what they thought "Internet Access" was all about :-( >so long as >the ISP can provide appropriate proxies for the services required. >I

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Everything is logged I have some policemen friends who will immediately add you to their Xmas card list! -- Roland Perry

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >ISPs would need to contact AOL, provide valid contact into and accept some sort >of AUP (I shall not spam AOL...) and then be allowed to connect from their IPs. >AOL could kick that mail server off later if they determi

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port For some, sure. Maybe even most. That doesn't mean all. Are you a fairly small

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:04:09PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct > access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies > for the services required. > It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done.

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On 28 Aug 2003 16:07 UTC Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | AOL for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before | they are allowed direct connections. ISPs would need to contact AOL, | provide valid contact into and accept some sort of AUP (I shall not | spam AOL...) and

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:00:29 EDT, Matthew Crocker said: > How does this sound for a new mail distribution network. Only a few problem here: 1) Bootstrapping it - as long as you need to accept legacy SMTP because less than 90% of the mail is being done the new way, you have a hard sell in getting

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Matthew Crocker wrote: Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies for the services required. It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done. There is a stigma against proxing because of the

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

This brings up a more general point about the dangers of blocking everything under the sun. When you limit yourself to just a few chokepoints, its easier for those who would stifle communications to shut things down. This is a very dangerous path to take. Not that we shouldn't consider some sort o

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:31 AM, Petri Helenius wrote: Matthew Crocker wrote: SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:07 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? applying that standard just how large do you have to get before you "g

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >applying that standard just how large do you have to get before >you "graduate" to running your own smtp server. I'd say having a "fixed connection" (eg DSL, T1) mainly because "we know where you live". Dial-ups are whole

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

- Original Message - From: "David Lesher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "nanog list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22 Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: &g

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

-On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -wrote: -> -> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs -> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? - -At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections -withou

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Matthew Crocker wrote: SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup user should be sending mail directly to AOL, or any mail server for

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Roland Perry wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen > J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >BT in the UK who as the incumbent are the only > >provider of things like unmetered dialup.. > > I have a 19.99 a month unmetered dialup from Freeserve (based on > FR

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? > > applying that standard just how large do you have to get before > you "graduate" to running your o

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? applying that standard just how large do you have to get before you "graduate" to running your own smtp server. "I'm sorry w

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >BT in the UK who as the incumbent are the only >provider of things like unmetered dialup.. I have a 19.99 a month unmetered dialup from Freeserve (based on FRIACO). There must be others. -- Roland Perry

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail >server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port 25 >connections >on our dialup and DSL pool. [snip] >there is no reason wh

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> > SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for > the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to ^ OH YES THERE IS (at least to a different resolver other than yours) > go direct to root

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Nipper, Arnold wrote: > > On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? > > At least here in DE there are

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Also depends on how much clue said ISP has. I have a DSL-like connection at home from a large LEC/ISP, but half the time their m

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections without any SMTP

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

> Sometime mid last week, one of my clients--a state chapter of > a national > association--became unable to send to all of their AOL > members. Assuming > it was simply that AOLs servers were inundated with infected emails, I > gave it some time. The errors were simply "delay" and "not > delivere

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, AT&T, Comcast - and in Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom (who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation. Here's another tale

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, AT&T, Comcast - and in >Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom >(who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation. Here's another t

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Provo writes > AOL's specific definition is point 12 on their >postmaster FAQ (http://postmaster.info.aol.com/faq.html). That's their definition of "Residential IP", not "Dynamic IP". > if you have a server on >a residential connection, check your service a

  1   2   >