[mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 9:30 PM
To: Owen DeLong; Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
wrote:
Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots
less
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 1:10 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Sent from my iPad
COOL!
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Really? So
That's really the question at hand here -- whether or not there's any
benefit to continuing the never ending arms race game. Some people
think there is. Others question whether anything is really being
accomplished. Certainly we're playing it out like an arms race -- ISPs
block something,
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
One of the high-level findings is that we developed probing techniques
to verify that indeed most ISPs are only blocking 1) outgoing traffic
of destination port 25 instead of 2) incoming traffic with source
port 25, which means that
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
One of the high-level findings is that we developed probing techniques
to verify that indeed most ISPs are only blocking 1) outgoing traffic
of destination port 25 instead of 2) incoming traffic with source
port 25, which means that
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
I know people at large ISPs with actual data. Port 25 blocking is
quite effective.
Does the data show that blocking was effective, as in the host
didn't detect the block and proceed around it, or, merely that lots
of hosts try the direct approach first?
i keep hearing that, but am having a hard time finding supporting data.
Might see the stats from http://cbl.abuseat.org - by AS. Then compare
the stats on a non port 25 filtered network (they have stats by AS) to
stats on a network that is filtered on port 25
The networks that are
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Tue Sep 7 15:15:13
2010
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:55:06 -0500
From: Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com
To: deles...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:38
With all the different webmail systems, it seems unlikely to me (though I
definitely wouldn't say impossible) that bots are spamming through your
webmail (unless you work for gmail, hotmail, etc. and are an attractive
enough target that it made sense to code a bot to automate utilizing your
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Anti-spam is a never ending arms race.
That's really the question at hand here -- whether or not there's any
benefit to continuing the never ending arms race game. Some people
think there is. Others question whether anything is
On Sep 6, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Getting rid of the vast majority of open relays and open proxies didn't
solve the spam problem, but there'd be more ways to send spam if those
methods were still generally
: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:54:49
To: NANOG listnanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
On Sep 6, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Getting rid of the vast majority of open relays and open proxies didn't
solve
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:38:15PM +, deles...@gmail.com wrote:
Having worked in past @ 3 large ISPs with residential customer pools
I can tell you we saw a very direct drop in spam issues when we
blocked port 25.
No one is disputing that. Or, at least, I'm not disputing that. I'm
The theory behind closing open relays, blocking port 25, etc., seems to
be:
(a) That will make it harder on spammers, and that will reduce spam --
some of the spammers will find other other ways to inject spam, but
some will just stop, OR
(b) Eventually, we'll find technical solutions to
No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically.
Something on the lines of turning a firehose of petrol on a wildfire
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for
consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received
No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically.
i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for
consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely increase a
bit. but my guess, and i mean guess, is that the limiting parameter
could well be how many bots the perps can
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i keep hearing that, but am having a hard time finding supporting data.
Might see the stats from http://cbl.abuseat.org - by AS. Then compare
the stats on a non port 25 filtered network (they have stats by AS) to
stats on a network
From: Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:07:49 +
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Could you point to more than one instance? I've not yet found one.
I've yet to run across this, either, FWIW, except on extremely
restrictive
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The spammers will move on to a network that doesn't block their
crap. As long as there are such open networks, spam will be rampant.
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:36, Claudio Lapidus clapi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The
...@ianai.net
To: North American Operators' Group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, 6 September, 2010 12:11:16 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:36, Claudio Lapidus clapi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The spammers will move on to a network that doesn't block their
crap. As long as there are such open networks, spam will be rampant. If,
overnight, every network filtered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
In many countries, the presence of bots consume a non-trivial amount of
bandwidth. In developing countries, this is a non trivial amount of $$$
On Sep 5, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The spammers will move on to a network that doesn't block their
crap. As long
On Sep 5, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The spammers will move on to a network that doesn't block their
crap. As long as there are such open networks, spam will be
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, 6 September, 2010 3:06:29 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
On Sep 5, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Claudio
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
practice to bidirectional brokenness.
On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:08 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
practice to bidirectional brokenness.
Since at least part of your
Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less spam
hitting our networks?
It's been extremely effective in blocking spam sent by spambots on
large ISPs. It's not a magic anti-spam bullet. (If you know one,
please let us know.)
workaround. Since, like many of us, I use
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 4:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand
, 2010 3:48:20 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
practice to bidirectional brokenness.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2010
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Have you heard of the submission port?
Yes... Many of the idiots that block outbound 25 also block outbound 587 and
sometimes 465.
Could you point to more than one instance? I've not yet
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes... Many of the idiots that block outbound 25 also block outbound 587 and
sometimes 465.
Could you point to more than one instance? I've not yet found one. And I think I spend at
least as much time in hotels 3G airports etc. as you anyone else here.
I
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Have you heard of the submission port?
Yes... Many of the idiots that block outbound 25 also block outbound 587 and
sometimes 465.
Could you
FWIW, I had it happen at a local library. Used their webform to send a
message mentioning that blocking 25 was good, but blocking 587 and 465
was bad. It took several days but they did fix it.
that was the condition at narita red carpet a few years back. had to
pull a chain at ugs in
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Daniel Senie d...@senie.com wrote:
Ingress filtering is the correct tool for the job.
Not really. Ingress filtering only ever protected you from being the
source of spooding attacks, not the destination. The point of Zhiyun's
results is that it doesn't fully
On 03/09/2010 16:16, Randy Bush wrote:
that was the condition at narita red carpet a few years back. had to
pull a chain at ugs in chicago to find someone who knew what i meant.
and people wonder why developers implement * over http/https. Sigh.
Nick
I have had it happen in some metro areas on sprint. I have experienced it in at
least a dozen hotels over the last 12 months. I have run into it in various
airports with free public wifi. I have run into the problem in several coffee
shops.
By far, the worst offenders are the most expensive
I use SSL only and even then, it requires authentication.
--Curtis
On 9/3/2010 1:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have had it happen in some metro areas on sprint. I have experienced it in at
least a dozen hotels over the last 12 months. I have run into it in various
airports with free public
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less spam
hitting our networks?
It's been extremely effective in blocking spam sent by spambots on
large ISPs. It's not a magic anti-spam
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:23 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Frankly, Zhiyun offers the first truly rational case I've personally seen for
packet filtering based on the TCP source port.
While the paper is entertaining and novel, and reflects a lot of creativity and
hard work on the part of the
On Sep 4, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
I've certainly never run across it, nor do I know anyone else who has done
so.
I stand corrected - it seems I do in fact know someone who's observed this
technique used to send spam, albeit in the past when POTS dial-up pools were
the
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Could you point to more than one instance? I've not yet found one.
I've yet to run across this, either, FWIW, except on extremely restrictive
special-purpose endpoint networks. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it
doesn't seem
It's been extremely effective in blocking spam sent by spambots on
large ISPs. It's not a magic anti-spam bullet. (If you know one,
please let us know.)
That simply hasn't been my experience. I still get lots of spam from booted
hosts in large provider networks, and yes, that includes many
[mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 3:20 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
It's been extremely effective in blocking spam sent by spambots on
large ISPs. It's not a magic anti-spam bullet. (If you know one,
please let us know
On 9/3/2010 3:19 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I know people at large ISPs with actual data. Port 25 blocking is quite
effective.
Well no one has said it in this thread yet, so I guess it's my turn. :)
When talking about spam it often happens that people make statements
along the lines of, Spam
I asked around and got this presentation, but you can search for OP25B too:
http://www.anacom.pt/streaming/Honda.pdf?contentId=988141field=ATTACHED_FILE
Some non-anecdotal data about the effectiveness of blocking port 25.
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less
spam hitting our networks?
Less than there could be. It appears a lot less effective because there
are so many ISPs not doing any blocking. Both
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 23:50, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I think you overestimate the efficacy of this.
First, why
[snip]
I think I see the problem here. You are using logic though experiments,
while others have this thing
Does the data show that blocking was effective, as in the host didn't detect
the block and proceed around it, or, merely that lots of hosts try the direct
approach first?
Yes.
R's,
John
Sorry for bringing this old topic back. But we have made some academic effort
investigating the spamming behaviors using assymetric routing (we named it
triangualr spamming). This work appeared in this year's IEEE Security
Privacy conference. You can take a look at it if you are interested
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Zhiyun Qian zhiy...@umich.edu wrote:
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/oakland10_triangular-spamming.pdf
One of the high-level findings is that we developed probing techniques
to verify that indeed most ISPs are only blocking 1) outgoing traffic
of
You are exactly right. We also talked about stateful firewall that can protect
the GoodNet. For NAT box, depends on the type of NAT, it is possible to setup
port forwarding on the router (mostly home routers) via uPnP without any
authentication (I think many home routers are like this by
Zhiyun, this is by far the most comprehensive paper I've seen on
asymmetric routing spam .. a technique that's as old as, for example,
Alan Ralsky. So been around for about a decade.
Congratulations, great effort. Do you have more results available (in
more detail than were published in this
Suresh, thanks for your interest. I see you've had a lot of experience in
fighting spam, so you must have known this. Yes, I know this spamming technique
has been around for a while. But it's surprising to see that the majority of
the ISPs that we studied are still vulnerable to this attack.
BCP38 / RFC2827 were created specifically to address some quite
similar problems. And googling either of those two strings on nanog
will get you a lot of griping and/or reasons as to why these aren't
being more widely adopted :)
--srs
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Zhiyun Qian
Great. Thanks for the information.
-Zhiyun
On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
BCP38 / RFC2827 were created specifically to address some quite
similar problems. And googling either of those two strings on nanog
will get you a lot of griping and/or reasons as to why
Ingress filtering is the correct tool for the job. The whole point here is that
packets are coming from somewhere they should not, and they are thus spoofed.
The tools have been in place to deal with this for a very long time now. The
drafts that became RFC 2267 (precursor of RFC 2827 / BCP38)
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this practice
to bidirectional brokenness.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Zhiyun Qian zhiy...@umich.edu wrote:
I skimmed through
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
practice to bidirectional brokenness.
Since at least part of your premise ('ineffective
...@umich.edu
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 3:48:20 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this practice
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this practice
to bidirectional brokenness.
Since at least part of your premise ('ineffective anti-spam measures') has been
Have you heard of the submission port?
Why Clients of an hotel would run a MTA anyhow?
- Original Message -
From: Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 4:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity for those whom may manage Hotel Wifi networks (I
know I know, not really ISP level but since we're on the topic of port
blocking). Does anyone actually make an effort to be blocking port
443? I've had that experience at a few Hotels in Philippines and I
On Nov 3, 2009, at 8:51 PM, mark [at] edgewire wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity for those whom may manage Hotel Wifi networks
(I know I know, not really ISP level but since we're on the topic of
port blocking). Does anyone actually make an effort to be blocking
port 443? I've had
Folks,
I would love to see the IETF OPSEC WG publish a Best Common Practices
document on ISP Port filtering. The document would capture information
similar to that offered by Justin.
Would anybody on this list be willing to author an Internet Draft?
Ron
The U. S. Congress is on the spot already, proposing strict scrutiny
tests for filtering and forwarding decisions of all kinds.
RB
Randy Bush wrote:
should we now look forward to deep technical opinons from law clerks
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and
[tangent of interst for the archives]
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:07:42PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
[snip]
If I'm assigned 24.1.2.3 by Comcast, and Comcast filters my ingress to
prevent me from emitting other addresses, you claim that's fine because
it's BCP38.
There's a problem: I can
Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
It most certainly does! There is absolutely nothing to prevent one from
shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre.
Actually, it doesn't. When I was on-staff at the computer center at Dartmouth,
our provost also
-
From: Richard E. Brown [mailto:richard.e.br...@dartware.com]
Sent: Sunday, 25 October, 2009 10:05
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: ISP port blocking practice/Free Speech
Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in
a crowded theatre.
It most certainly does
Your scholar is wrong -- or he is giving the simplified explanation
for children and others incapable of rational though and
understanding, and you are believing the summary because it is
simpler for you than understanding the underlying rational.
Ah, the classic nerd legal misconception. Laws
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 04:19:23PM -0500, Lee Riemer wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Which demonstrates just how relevant to reality such things are.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
should we now look forward to deep technical opinons from law clerks
-original message-
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: 24/10/2009 4:00 am
Yes.
Owen
On Oct 23, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Only if you take a legalistic view of it. Too much
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Yes.
Owen
No.
The idea of net neutrality, in this context, is for service providers
to avoid making arbitrary decisions about the services that a customer
will be allowed.
Blocking 25, or 137-139, etc., are common steps taken to
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
Dan White wrote:
On 23/10/09 17:58 -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:
Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail.
Or the
message content.
It does block incoming SMTP traffic on
Chris Boyd wrote:
Once it's set up correctly we've found customers really like it since
their email just works in most places.
Earlier this week I had an experience at a San Jose[1] Public Library,
where they blocked ports 995, 587, 465, and 119. None of my mail
services (or usenet
On Oct 24, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Yes.
Owen
No.
The idea of net neutrality, in this context, is for service providers
to avoid making arbitrary decisions about the services that a customer
will be allowed.
Right.
On Oct 24, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Yes.
Owen
No.
The idea of net neutrality, in this context, is for service providers
to avoid making arbitrary decisions about the services that a customer
will be
Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
It most certainly does! There is absolutely nothing to prevent one from
shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre. In fact, any attempt to legislate a
prohibition against such behaviour would, in all civilized countries
Blocking port 25 is not, IMHO, a violation of Network Neutrality. I
explained why in a very long, probably boring, post. Your definition of
Network neutrality may differ. Which is fine, but doesn't make mine wrong.
--
TTFN,
patrick
I agree with this. I would think that from an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Jon Kibler wrote:
To answer that question, I would start with ingress and egress filtering by
IP
address, protocol, etc.:
1) Never allow traffic to egress any subnet unless its source IP address
is
within that subnet
Jon Kibler wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Jon Kibler wrote:
To answer that question, I would start with ingress and egress filtering by
IP
address, protocol, etc.:
1) Never allow traffic to egress any subnet unless its source IP address
is
within that subnet range.
Sorry to nit, but
Owen DeLong wrote:
Blocking ports that the end user has not asked for is bad.
I was going to ask for a clarification to make sure I read your
statement correctly but then again it's short enough I really don't see
any room to misinterpret it. Do you seriously think that a typical
On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
My experience is that port 587 isn't used because ISPs block it
out-of-hand. Or in the case of Rogers in (at least) Vancouver, hijack
it with a proxy that filters out the AUTH parts of the EHLO response,
making the whole
Chris Boyd wrote:
Once it's set up correctly we've found customers really like it since
their email just works in most places.
We get the same response. The largest 587 usage we have currently,
though, is cell/PDA.
Jack
Chris Boyd wrote:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
My experience is that port 587 isn't used because ISPs block it
out-of-hand. Or in the case of Rogers in (at least) Vancouver, hijack
it with a proxy that filters out the AUTH parts of the EHLO
On October 23, 2009, Steve Bertrand wrote:
http://eagle.ca/update/mail/Outlook_Express/index.html
...yes, believe it or not, even with the pictures, they will sometimes
still get it wrong ;)
Years in planning and implementation, but a good, large-scale learning
exercise and the
Michael Peddemors wrote:
On October 23, 2009, Steve Bertrand wrote:
http://eagle.ca/update/mail/Outlook_Express/index.html
...yes, believe it or not, even with the pictures, they will sometimes
still get it wrong ;)
Years in planning and implementation, but a good, large-scale learning
Rogers
says they don't do that, and lots of other people seem to be able to
use port 587 on Rogers (and other ISPs) without problems.
I'm in Calgary right now so I can't check the current behaviour, but
as of June 1st it was still broken. Broken in the sense that any
connection to port 587
On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
As for outright blockage of port 587, I get this complaint from many
of
my clients while they are on the road. It seems hotels love to block
it.
I travel a bit (used to a lot) and only found one place that proxied
it.
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Justin Shore wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Blocking ports that the end user has not asked for is bad.
I was going to ask for a clarification to make sure I read your
statement correctly but then again it's short enough I really don't
Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail. Or the
message content.
Blocking various well know M$ protocol ports does not block remote
file access. Or control the type of files that can be accessed.
I think the relevant neutrality principle is that traffic is not
Dan White wrote:
On 23/10/09 17:58 -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:
Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail. Or the
message content.
It does block incoming SMTP traffic on that well known port.
Then the customer should have bought a class of service that permits
No, blocking a port does not restrict a customers use of the network
any more than one way streets restrict access to downtown stores. It
just forces certain traffic directions in a bicycle/motorcycle/car/van/
truck neutral manner. Carry anything you want. Others laws restrict
incendiary
The original intent of Net Neutrality laws had nothing to do with
blocking or not on random ports. It had to do with giving an unfair
advantage to the provider in question to sell competing services.
Much like anti-trust legislation doesn't stop a company from cornering
a market, just
On 23/10/09 17:43 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
It does block incoming SMTP traffic on that well known port.
Then the customer should have bought a class of service that permits
servers.
That justification is a slippery slope. At what point do you draw the line
on what constitutes business
On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
Dan White wrote:
On 23/10/09 17:58 -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:
Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail. Or
the
message content.
It does block incoming SMTP traffic on that well known port.
Then the customer should
Yes.
Owen
On Oct 23, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Justin Shore wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Blocking ports that the end user has not asked for is bad.
I was going to ask for a clarification to make sure I read your
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
