RE: ISP outbound SMTP filtering

Hey Herb, when you go out of business give me a call, I might want to
buy your networking hardware for pennies on the dollar.  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Herb Peyerl
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:34 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: ISP outbound SMTP filtering
> 
> 
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> 
> > I can see the point of this, but I must agree.  Having been one of 
> > those people who ran a mail server from a business class 
> DSL line who 
> > had to fight for many weeks to get my isp to stop filtering all 
> > traffic on port
> > 25 I my network very simply.  It's in the contract you 
> sign.  I filter 
> > nothing, unless specifically requested to do so.  I state 
> that it is 
> > your responsibility to make sure that your machine is not a 
> menace to 
> > my business.  I do have guides available to all my 
> customers on how to 
> > make sure their machine is not spewing filth, and I have in 
> there to 
> > contact me if you have questions.  I help people learn when they 
> > compensate for my time.  I have said that if your computer 
> begins to 
> > affect my network, I will let you know.  After your first 
> warning you 
> > have 48 hours to correct the situation, or I will disable 
> your service 
> > until it is fixed.
> > I have had to do this once, and the customer didn't fight 
> me on it at 
> > all.
> 
> That's awfully lenient.  If one of your customers is spewing 
> spam at a rate of 1000 messages per hour, 48 hours is an 
> eternity.  Also, business class DSL is different.  Typically 
> business class customers  
> pay more, sign contracts, and accept a certain amount of liability.   
> Joe's grandma at home is a different story.   The average linux  
> weenie trying to operate a mail server in his kitchen 
> cupboard should be relaying his outbound mail through his ISP 
> or through some other  
> third party mail server.   He's not going to get much traction on a  
> dynamic address that's in some RBL...
> 
> I'm all about helping people to learn, but you people are 
> ISP's.  You are supposed to be a paragon of responsible 
> netizen.  You are not supposed to let spam emanate from your network.
> 
> Look, this just isn't difficult.  In this city, we have 2 
> primary ISP's.  The incumbent telco and the incumbent 
> cableco.  There are a few (one less now, as of recently) 
> smaller ISPs who either offer dialup or resell the telco's 
> DSL.  The incumbent telco blocks outbound port 25 for 
> residential customers.  The cableco doesn't at present but 
> will be in the next 6 months.  This is a city of just over 1 
> million people.  The telco isn't out of business and the  
> cableco doesn't seem to have the lions share of their business.   
> People accepted the limitation and got over it.
> 
> > Like I stated, having fought with my first ISP who was filtering 
> > outbound and incoming traffic, I find it appalling that 
> anyone would 
> > suggest this.  I am all about teaching people and helping people 
> > learn.
> > I would rather run the slight risk that a client could 
> become host to 
> > zombie that spews out thousands of messages a minute, than have a 
> > client come to me and say "hey why is such and such port 
> filtered."  I 
> > offer
> 
> You'd rather force a huge spam problem on the rest of the 
> world than answer a simple question for your customer?
> 
> >> If I were your customer and you tried to tell me that a standard 
> >> email client will not work on your ISP my response would 
> be to find 
> >> another ISP.
> >
> > Completely agree.  If my current ISP did that and refused 
> to resolve 
> > it within 72 hours, by then it would be costing me a 
> serious amount of 
> > business.  I LIVE by email, and sadly would be completely 
> lost without
> 
> At no point did I suggest that no one run a standard mail client.   
> That is someone else's rhetoric and apparently neither of you 
> read english all that well.
> 
> > it.  I think as net admins its our job to make things easy for the 
> > client.  Not  to put on our holier than thou cap and try to protect 
> > the world from our clients who don't know what they are 
> doing.  Again 
> > im
> 
> Well, you are wrong.  As a net admin, it is your responsibility to  
> ensure that your network is not a menace to the rest of the world.   
> If you choose to let your customers have outbound port 25 
> with no restrictions, then it is your subsesquent 
> responsibility to ensure that none of your customers are 
> sending spam on that port.  I don't care how you do it, but 
> that is your contract with the world.  You have another 
> contract with the world, don't let your routes flap.  If they 
> do, you get attenuated until you fix it.  You accept that and  
> know it as a fundamental truth.  Why is it not likewise with spam?   
> Is it because, at present, the world doesn't have an RBL with 
> your name in it?
> 
> In May 2006, there was a 20 billion message spam run.  80% of the  
> spam came from windows zombies.  (Jason Steer, IronPort).     That  
> was from ISP's like you who don't care to run a network correctly.
> 
> Like I say, I don't care how you get it done, but this is 
> your job, do it.
> 
> > huge on the education thing, so teach them the value of a 
> good secure 
> > password, teach them not to click on banner ads to "remove 
> spyware", 
> > teach them not to open unsafe attachments and the value of 
> a current 
> > anti-virus subscription (or equivalent free client).
> 
> Oh please. Spare me the blue skies.  While you're in there 
> teaching them, teach them how to configure their mail client 
> to send mail to you using auth with TLS on port 587.
> 
> > My personal domain is very busy considering there are 3 people with 
> > email accounts.  According to my mail server there were 508 
> > successfully authenticated messages sent yesterday, and 
> 1126 received.  
> > If my isp said "oh sorry you can only send or receive 500 
> messages a 
> > day I would be furious.
> 
> Again, you're reading into what I said.  I was talking about 
> how many messages a person can send in some period of time.  
> I don't care how many messages you receive.  Completely 
> uninteresting to me.  And I didn't say "500 messages a day".  
> What limits you establish are between you and your customer.  
> Remember, you're all about education.
> 
> You must spend a great deal of your life being 'furious', 
> given that you so consistently misread what people say...
> 
> People like you two are exactly why we have a spam problem these days.
> _______________________________________________
> "Eat sushi frequently". - Avi
> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> 
_______________________________________________
"Eat sushi frequently". - Avi
[email protected] is the human contact address.
[email protected] is the list posting address.
See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list