AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.

Jeff Kinz jkinz at kinz.org
Sun Mar 30 22:34:48 EST 2003


On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:09:38PM -0500, Ben Boulanger wrote:
> Ya know, I said my part.  I put my .02 in... but I just can't sit here and 
> listen to this anymore.  Here's what it comes down to:  You ARE in IP 
> Space of known open relays.  You ARE in known residential space.  You ARE 
> paying a low premium for high bandwidth (compare it if you disagree).  
> 
> AOL is doing the right thing here and they shouldn't have to answer to you 
> or anyone else for it.  They are stopping spam into their networks - 
> that's all that matters.  Sorry if they're impacting a couple of us, but 
> life goes on.  If you can't accept the fact that you're in know open relay 
> space, you're blind.  There are lists that keep track of open relays and 
> I'd be willing to bet that you can find >100 at any given time in our ip 
> space.  

Hi Ben, et al....
Let me see if I understand your proposition correctly:
as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone 
who is in close proximity to lawbreakers as long as your doing it to punish
lawbreakers?

For lawbreakers you can say spammers if that makes you more comfortable.

hmmmm - No - this definitely doesn't pass my sniff test.  By your logic
its ok to fine or put in jail anyone who lives next to drug dealers or 
near people who steal cable.

Punishing the innocent just because it takes effort to separate the guilty
from the innocent has never ever been acceptable to the human end of society.

Yes it works for companies, but then companies are entities that make 
conscious, well informed decisions to let people die because the
cost of the lawsuits is calculated to cost less than changing a design 
defect that left the gas tank filler neck of the Ford Pinto just a 
wee bit too short.  I don't think we want to follow that kind of lead
as an example of principled behavior.


So -I understand why AOL has the policy, but I don't agree that its OK.
It is sheer laziness.  TOS limits are actually intended to reduce 
bandwidth use, not keep people from running any particular protocol
in any particular direction.  HTTP request initiated out are OK, but
initiated in are not OK?   It doesn't really matter to ComCast as long 
as you don't hog the pipe.  Same for AOL.  The reason AOL is blocking 
those IP's is its easier than actually blocking the spammers.
But its wrong.  Its breaks the internet, a little bit and begins 
the whole kit and kaboodle sliding toward the day when all email
and web services MUST go through an AOL/ISP approved node.  

That must never happen but all the large ISP's would like it to.

Does anyone think that AOl would never try to act like some of the other 
large monopolistic companies?


> 

> I'm completely behind any company that takes the brave step forward and 
> does this.  Yes, it pisses some people off, but at least it's a definite 
> step.  It brings the problem right out into the open for the people who 
> can make a difference to see.  If you disagree with their choice - talk to 
> Comcast, not AOL.  It's their poor enforcement of problem hosts that make 
> changes like these.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 	  "The gene pool could use a little chlorine."  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
> 

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research,  Hudson, MA.  jkinz at kinz.org
copyright 2003.  Use is restricted. Any use is an 
acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html.
Don't forget to change your password often.



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list