Anti-spam methods (was: Re: Comcast blocking port 25? (not what you think))

bscott at ntisys.com bscott at ntisys.com
Mon May 10 18:08:00 EDT 2004


On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 2:21pm, pri.lugofnh at iadonisi.to wrote:
> I'm basically on the side of individual freedoms and don't like that port
> 25 egress filtering is being implemented by broadband vendors.

  Geeks (I include myself in this category) like to romanticize this idea of
the big, happy Internet, where all people are equal, censorship is treated
as damage, and so on.  I'm afraid that is a myth.  That mythical "Internet"  
does not exist, and never has.

  You can connect your equipment to somebody else's equipment.  That's it.  
If you're big enough, the "somebody else" might be a peer.  Most people just
pay for a link or two to companies that specialize in network connections.  
Regardless, you're connecting to *their* equipment, and they can run it
however they see fit.  If nobody is willing to give you connection on their
terms, you do not get connected.  It has always been this way.

  I find it helps to keep this in mind, when people start feeling their
"freedom" has been infringed because their ISP doesn't let them do
everything they want to.

> But as long as there are vendors that will give you an unfiltered
> connection (even for a larger fee), with fixed IPs, I'll be happy.

  Indeed.  Paying a higher fee for a higher class of service will always get
you better treatment.  Here, too, realize you're not just paying for IP
address space, you're paying for the promise of support.  Not just the guy
answering the phone when you have trouble, but support in the sense that
your ISP won't mess you up like this.

> I do predict that spammers will adapt to this new authenticated email
> world rather quickly.  [...] But we will still be in a better place when
> it comes to spam.  When enough clueless users get disconnected from their
> ISPs for spam propagation ...

  Heck, just the fact that it adds an audit trail to the message headers (so
I, as a mail abuse victim, can trace it back more easily) is worth it.  It
also means an ISP will be able to notice that Subscriber #53429 is sending
way more mail then is reasonable, and thus take action to cut off the spam
before as much spam gets sent.

> [Users] will either take more proactive measures to keep their systems
> clean of viruses, or put more pressure on their operating system vendors
> of choice to put security where it belongs: at a much higher priority than
> convenience.  Or both.

  Add to that: After Joe Luser has had his feed cut a few times, maybe he
will think twice before installing whatever random software he finds on the
net.

> Sadly, I'd suggest that we all get used to this up and coming
> authenticated email world.

  s/email//

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |




More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list