METROCAST BLOCKS RESIDENTIAL E-MAIL

[aluminumsulfate at earthlink.net]

   From: "Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com>
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:27:05 -0500

   > Metrocast, last week, started filtering packets sent by their
   > customers to port 25 on ALL Internet hosts.

     Yup.  More and more ISPs are doing this -- generally the larger
   ones.  Get used to it.  It's not going to go away, because the problem
   is ultimately stupid people, and that problem is never going to be
   fixed.

The problem is ultimately stupid people.  I agree.  But, with proper
management, the actions of stupid people can cease to be problematic.
There are plenty of technologies available which -- singlehandedly --
could eliminate the spam problem.  This is a case of *mismanaging*
stupid people.

   > Despite Mr. Bradley's assurances that this is an effort to reduce spam
   > and protect me (yeah right) ...

     It is very much an anti-spam measure.  As others have pointed out,
   the *vast majority* of mail sent from consumer Internet feeds to a
   destination of TCP port 25 is spam, sent by compromised computers run
   by home users who install every piece of software "the Interweb tells
   them to".

Most email *is* spam, period.  Blocking all email would be guaranteed
to block all spam, too.  But it's definitely a wrong-headed approach.
It's like chopping off everyone's thumbs in order to keep terrorists
from building bombs.

   >  I'm sure Verizon would be happy to help our group switch over to DSL.

     Verizon has variously employed outbound TCP 25 blocking and/or SMTP
   authentication for relay as well.

I have been working on some economic models which suggest that Verizon
(or any telco provider) would be eager to see Metroca$t (cable INET)
suffer.

   >      (A) If censoring e-mail constitutes curtailment of free speech.

   law...".  It doesn't say one damn thing about me or you.  A telco is
   under no obligation to provide you a particular kind of technical
   service.

A telco cannot, by law, prohibit me from calling the (615) area code.
They cannot legally install hardware to listen for and silence me
every time I want to say "fuck" during the course of a telephone
conversation.

     Tin-foil hat people, please note that they can monitor/log/whatever
   your email using a packet sniffer just as easily as using an SMTP
   host, so that argument is bogus.

This is simply not true.  It is much easier to snoop email handled at
the application layer than at the transport layer.  This is especially
true when *my* MTA connects to an MX that supports TLS.  Metrocas$t's
SMTP server advertises TLS capability, but it's broken.  (One more
reason why I wouldn't call their relay a "smarthost".)  So doing this
forces me to send *all* email unencrypted over its *entire* route (MUA
-> "smart"host -> MX).

   >      (B) If unilaterally making the change to restrict e-mail
   >          constitutes violation of contract law.

     Read your ToS.  It basically says they can do anything they want,
   and they're not obligated to provide any Class of Service.  If you

Well, first of all, I never received or agreed to any ToS.  But, just
as sure as I'm sitting here typing, Metroca$t *agreed* to provide
"Internet service".  What I'm questioning is whether or not the legal
definition of Internet service includes email.

   From: Ed Lawson <elawson at grizzy.com>
   Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:18:13 -0500

   using their SMTP server?  They have always indicated web, FTP,
   and mail servers are not allowed on residential service plans.  I
   could be wrong, but I bet it was in the terms of service when you
   signed up.  If so, you really have no basis to complain they
   finally did something to enforce the agreement.

I don't think Metroca$t's lawyers would know a server from the holes
in their asses.  Most modern computer systems *are* collections of
servers.  If I was truly forbidden from running any servers on my
Metrocrap-connected hosts, I'd have to log out right now because I'm
running an X server (using X windows).  My computer would also be
depressingly silent, because I wouldn't be allowed to run my sound
server either.  I wouldn't be able to print anything, because I
couldn't run cups.  I wouldn't be able to ssh between boxes, because
that would mean running sshd.  And, without an MTA, I wouldn't have
any local mail.  I wouldn't be able to connect my Linksys router up to
the connection, either, because they have a web-based management
interface (which is, technically, an HTTP server).  Allowing a
customer to use an Internet connection and forbidding the use of
"servers" is like allowing them to use a computer, while forbidding
the use of "devices".  It's a technically meaningless assertion...

   From: "Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com>
   Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:33:44 -0500

     Of course, cable companies *are not* a free market, since they've
   been granted a monopoly by the local government in the local area.  I
   suggest that the solution *there* is to fix the root cause (granting
   overly broad monopoly power), not bitch about how lousy the resulting
   monopoly is.

One strategy I'm working on to fight Metroca$t will involve uprooting
this monopoly.  Stay tuned.