t;>From: Ricky Beam [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
>>wrote:
Brian J.
>-Original Message-
>From: Ricky Beam [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
>-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, J
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Doing away with open relays and open proxies didn't really interfere with
> legitimate traffic on a meaningful level.
>
> Blocking outbound SMTP is causing such problems.
>
You keep saying this, but can you provide any examples of situations w
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 mean
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 mean
>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,
Owen DeLong 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?
Only a
> 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
> To: deles...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
> Cc: NANOG list
>
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010
>> 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
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Randy Bush 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 that is filt
> 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 pe
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 wrote:
> i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for
> consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely in
> 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 t
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
qu
6 Sep 2010 17:54:49
To: NANOG list
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
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 gen
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 r
> 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 y
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Jon Lewis"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> 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
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, sp
On Sep 5, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam 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 th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Franck Martin 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 $$$
> (http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/09/05/1620
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 po
To: "North American Operators' Group"
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 wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:36, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>
>> If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
>> (probablly) The spammers will move on to a netw
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam 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,
> overnigh
> From: "Dobbins, Roland"
> 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 special-purpose e
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
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 23:50, Owen DeLong 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 called "data".
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong 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 of my residential
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 4, 2010, at 7:49 AM, "John R. Levine" wrote:
>>> 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 ge
I asked around and got this presentation, but you can search for OP25B too:
http://www.anacom.pt/streaming/Honda.pdf?contentId=988141&field=ATTACHED_FILE
Some non-anecdotal data about the effectiveness of blocking port 25.
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
John R. Levine [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
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 th
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 t
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 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 resea
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:10 PM, John Levine 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 bullet.
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
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 hot
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 23:08 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> He's right though. tcp/25 blocks are a hack. Easy man's way out.
Also, this can be a little problematic to end users.
> Honestly, it'd be nicer if edge or even core systems could easily handle
> higher level filtering for things like thi
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
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Daniel Senie 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 protect you from b
> 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 ch
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 point
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 c
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
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
ot;NANOG list"
> 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 to bi
ot;Jack Bates"
> To: "NANOG list"
> 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 (b
>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 us
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 o
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 broken
Have you heard of the submission port?
Why Clients of an hotel would run a MTA anyhow?
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Bates"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 4:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> We
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
o
ot;
Cc: "NANOG list"
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
to bidirectional broken
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 anti-s
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 wrote:
> I skimmed through these specs. The
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) d
I skimmed through these specs. They are useful but seems only related specific
to IP spoofing prevention. I see that IP spoofing is part of the asymmetric
routing story. But I was more thinking that given that IP spoofing is not
widely adopted, the other defenses that they can more perhaps more
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 th
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 wrote:
> Suresh,
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. Th
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 pap
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 default
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Zhiyun Qian 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 destination port 25
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 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 tha
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
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
can't
[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 va
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 Innova
should we now look forward to deep technical opinons from law clerks
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
>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. Law
age-
> 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 theat
> 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 happe
>
>
>
> 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 t
> 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
> 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
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.
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 ser
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
> > 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 tak
-original message-
Subject: Re: ISP port blocking practice
From: Owen DeLong
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 of th
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
>[...] Just because someone bought themselves a
>Camry doesn't mean that Toyota is deciding for them that they can't haul
> 1000lbs of concrete with it. [...]
Server does not necessarily equal business. A server that handles
a few perso
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
statemen
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
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 use
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 sto
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 co
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
servers.
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.
I think the relevant neutrality principle is that traffic is not blocked
by content.
My person
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
block
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
s
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.
> 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
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 l
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
