I agree,
However, I don't see isp's not charging for access to blocked
ports. As is now, my current isp has hardware firewalls built into their
modems (along with dhcp etc.) and you can change the config (via
webbrowser) if you know what you are doing. I'm saying these kinds of
devices IMHO are preferred to having site wide blockage of traffic. My
isp requires that you buy their modem, you can't use a 3rd party's
modem. All I am saying, is before we all find ourselves with blocked
ports and having to pay some guy to sit a console and re-enable them,
that there are implementations that are already in effect, and allow the
user to define whether or not they have blocked ports. A large ISP will
charge an outrageous price to unblock ports and monitor traffic. It is
easiest now, for them to just let it through, even though, in the long
run, would be cheaper for them to stop the zombies.
I have had may discussions with my isp on this matter, and the biggest
reason they say they will not block ports is not they don't care about
their customers being hacked, but the fact that they may face reprisals
for not stopping the illegal sharing of files (we all know the ones) of
their customers computers. So, their defense to not stopping it is we
allow all traffic unobstructed, unbiased and unfiltered.
Thanks,
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:27 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.
Importance: High
Yeah, we have had this same conversation on another list a week ago. We
are
saying by DEFAULT and ISP should block the ports, BUT it should be
removed
if asked, and FREE of charge. I'm sure the percentage of users who would
request it would be like 5%. THen it would be easy to monitor traffic
(not
data) of those 5%.
ISPs used to complain about the costs of hardware vs. traffic. I'd say
this
would help them in the long run. DON't raise my broadband bill, decrease
the
spam traffic on your net!
--Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.
>
>
> Not to flame anyone, but I sure do hope my isp never blocks ports. I
> don't pay for obstructed internet access. I do run a small
> mail server
> from my home dsl connection. I allow family members to use
> that to send
> to/from. The local cable provider here (Brighthouse) just
> about blocks
> all inbound ports. This is fine for the normal internet user, but for
> those of us who know what we are doing this hurts us. If my
> isp were to
> block ports, that would hinder on what I am doing. I don't have a
> professional dsl line (3x as much as residential) and in
> order for me to
> get a professional line, I would need to buy a professional phone
> service from the phone co (again, 3x the price). A whole lot
> of bloat I
> don't need nor want. My modem has a very good firewall built in and
> uses nat. This is the normal, default setup. The isp doesn't provide
> any solutions in overriding it, but is allowed. I use an internal
> router with nat instead of the modem's built in. I think
> this is a much
> better way of blocking ports than isp's blocking ports. If
> isp's set up
> this feature properly, then allow us advanced users to "unlock" so to
> speak, this is more desirable IMHO. This technology obviously
> exists and
> I think is a much better option.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Pierre Thomson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:13 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.
>
> It's not strictly a spam measurement, but www.senderbase.org has
> excellent real-time lists of outbound mail volume by ISP and
> IP address.
>
> Pierre
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:08 AM
> To: 'Fred'; AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.
>
> ...
> I'm trying to find some stats on spam origins. Particularly by ISP. I
> see
> very little spam coming from cox.net cable modems vs. a buttload from
> Comcast. Would be nice to know the biggest ones and start a
> movement one
> at
> a time to get this problem fixed. If I've learned anything from this
> list,
> its a group has a far better chance of getting things done then 1
> person.
>
> Consider me with you Fred.
>
> --Chris
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
