COX blocking own users outbound email

[Ben Scott]

> From: Jeff Kinz <jkinz at kinz.org>	
> To: gnh <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>, blug <discuss at blu.org>

  Isn't it supposed to be poor form to cross-post controversial subjects?

On 9/3/06, Jeff Kinz <jkinz at kinz.org> wrote:
> Long time internet users viewed port 25 traffic as part of the inherent
> bundle of services and "internet connection" provided by any ISP should
> include.

  Some view it that way.  Others say, "Hey, if I'm an operator, I get
to be in control of my network.  It's not your network, it's mine.  If
you don't like it, go somewhere else."

> (When they took the Jews  away I kept quiet because I wasn't a Jew, when they
> took the teachers away I kept quiet because I wasn't a teacher...)

  Can I invoke Godwin's Law here?  (It was trade unionists who came
after the Jews, BTW, not teachers.)

> The answer is the same as it was years ago.  When a user misbehaves and
> their connection provider doesn't take care of it, the other connection
> providers cut them off from the internet completely.

  Interesting.  So when a single given ISP does not provide port 25
outbound, that's evil censorship, but if all ISPs block everything
from an entire ISP, that's the way things are supposed to work.  Huh?

> In the "old days" a college's IT department had a budget, they spent it.
> done.

  In the "old days", using the Internet for commercial purposes was
forbidden, and it was basically an ivory-tower research network.  When
one opens the doors to the world, one has to realize that the bad will
enter with the good.

> Is there room for the IDP today?  The ISP's will say no, simply because
> such a thing would requires expensive efforts and would impact their
> cash flow.

  It's a tough situation to be in.  Vast amounts of spam originate
from all over the place.  Presently, in many cases, this spam
originates from compromised machines, which together are operated by
the vast majority of Internet users.  Do you suggest we IDP everybody?
 That seems a bit strong.  How about we just block them from making
direct-to-MX connections, since that's what the spam does?  Oh, wait,
you said that's evil censorship.

  The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as many people seem
to think it is.  In particular, nobody seems to realize that network
operators aren't fscking magic wizards.  We're techs like many others
here are, and we're trying to do the best we can in a very imperfect
world.

> Further it would impact peering contracts and SLA agreements where
> applying the IDP would mean breaking committed, legal contract
> terms.

  Bullshit.  Just about any agreement (SLA, TOS, AUP, etc.) already
has exceptions for activity which harms the operator's network.

> As a final issue, those same laws would have to be put in place on a
> world wide basis.

  That's a big part of the problem.  And just like building a wall
around the US and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world isn't
a practical solution to brick-and-mortar security, firewalling out the
rest of the world isn't a practical solution to the spam problem,
either.

On 9/3/06, Jeffrey Creem <jeff at thecreems.com> wrote:
> I don't know what the right answer is, but it is not the current
> path that we are on.

  That I agree with -- both parts.

-- Ben