COX blocking own users outbound email

[Thomas Charron]

On 9/3/06, Jeff Kinz <jkinz at kinz.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 04:02:25PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
> >   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."
> The problem here is that we have a business running part of the public
> infrastructure.  Sadly, human nature being what it is, this never works
> out for the best. The business never chooses to run the infrastructure
> in the way that is in the best interests of the people it serves.


  In what way is the internet a public infrastructure?  If this is the case,
I demand to have fiber run to my house in the boondocks of Lyndeborough at
the expense of everyone else.  :-)

The supposed choice implied by "If you don't like it, go somewhere
> else." is non existent.  Its a false choice frame-up. There is no
> "somewhere else" to go to get away from this problem.
> Like most people in the USA I currently have two or fewer choices for
> high speed residential broadband access.  Even when including dial up
> providers the same restrictions are in effect because of the standards
> created by the duopoly.  They all do this so there is no real
> choice.


  What standards?  I didn't know there was a federal mandate on what
technologies could be used to transfer IP traffic.  What you don't like is
that you don't have a network connection that you can do whatever you wish
with.  Good news.  You can buy one.  Unfortionatly,  at a much greater cost
then you currently pay.


> " It's not your network, it's mine."
> Yup - Our information highway is a toll road. for now.
> And thats the problem  The infrastructure material/physical assets are
> owned by the wrong entity. The tail is wagging the dog.


....

They paid for them.  They BUILT them.  But..  They aren't theirs?  They are
somehow..  Yours?

Why do you think the cable/phone duopoly HATES Muni-Wi-Fi projects so
> much? :-)  They could lose their monopoly!


  *nod*  And the best part?  They can't really do a lick about it.  You want
to do it, go buy the above mentioned internet connection, and go house.
They can't stop you.

  On the other hand, using your logic..  It'll be mine.  After all, you have
an internet connection, and the internet is a public infrastructure, right?

With real competition each year a company can lose the business. If they
> haven't done a good job or tried to milk it for too much money.  For
> the very first time in history the phone company would actually have
> a direct business reason to do a good job at a low price instead of a
> premium price.


  Again, feel free.  Go house.  It's a free country.  :-)

The point of the original context was that history has shown, many
> times, that if you let a small group of people get persecuted for unfair
> reasons, you are enabling the persecutors to do it to whomever they
> want for any reason and get away with it.


  ...  Blocking port 25 is NOT persecution.  That's your landlord not
allowing his/her customers use of the rear lawn becouse too many times it's
bee destroyed by dogs.

Stopping illegal behavior is "Censorship" ?
> I'm talking about illegal behavior, and enforcing the restriction of
> that behavior.  Not, as has already been done by some ISP's, restricting
> their customers access to websites whose politics are in opposition to
> the ISP's politics. (Rogers Cable, Canada IIRC)


  Have they ever refused to allow DNS names to resolve to these sites?  No.
Whomever you use to provide your service decides to resrict their
customers.  Good for them.  Even better for the ISP's they turn to.

  Damned that free country environment.  I mean, MV communications would
have been GOLDEN years ago if they could have told everyone else to goto
hell, they have the market cornered in NH.  Of course, we also wouldn't have
DSL, cable, or fiber options as many due now, simply becouse they where a
smaller company.

  (Disclaimer, I LIKE MV, I know mallet is on the list, it's simply an
example of a company who was one of the first to come in and provide ISP
services on a larger scale in NH, that's all)


> I disagree. No system is ever perfect, but, again taking the
> road/highway system as an example you can achieve a specific level of
> proper behavior if you are willing to do so. If you break the rules
> severely enough on the road you will eventually get caught and get a
> ticket, do that enough times and you lose your driving privileges.


  Yes.  And that pothole in your vision of the Internet that's causing you
50% packet loss will be fixed within the next few months.  Promise.  Hope it
doesn't ruin your computers shocks, tho...

>   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?
> Nope - an effective solution to zombied systems is easy to implement
> and very very precise.
> My log files identify thousands of unique IP's attempting to attack my
> system thru various means. These attack vectors are easily identified.
> I have, at various times, reported these IP's and the times of their
> attacks back to their ISP's.  Nothing was done.


  ...  They started blocking all port 25 traffic.  That's doing something.
rather draconian, indeed, but it's something.  You can't expect them to hire
an entire department to filter thru what thousand machines just got infected
and shut them off the day a new Windows exploit is released.  It's not
feasable.

These actions are easily automated and once a zombie system has been
> identified by an outside report it is easy to automate a process that
> would monitor and verify that the account's computer has been taken over
> thereby eliminating any possibility of fraudulent accusations being used
> to harm those who did not have a zombied system.


  Depends.  Who defines what's 'illegal'?  Homeland security?  :-)

As for automating the reports of zombied attacks, add a plug in to
> symantec, norton and the software based firewalls.  You can even have
> each report signed with a PGP block to verify that its a real report.
> Each vendor and ISP would have a unique signature that verifies they
> are actually the source of the report.


  You WANT censorship?  *blink*  Damned you evil bastard!  How DARE you
block my port!  It's a PUBLIC network, I can use whatever ports I WANT for
my porn...  Errr...  'buisness'.

>   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.
> The problem is not the techs or the technology.  Everything I've
> proposed is doable with current technology and even old technology.


  Then go forth and be the company you propose.  SAYING things should be a
way from the outside is easy.  Create an ISP.  I'll be looking forward to my
publically funded fiber.

  Is installing it next Tuesday good for you?  ;-P  (Note tounge in cheek)

Even if the current Mega-routers can't do the monitoring needed, adding
> some high end PC's with the appropriate network interface in a vampire
> tap configuration would allow them to bring sufficient extra horsepower to
> bear on the data stream without disrupting the operation of the NOC.
> Of course ... those taps are already in place thanks to the generosity
> of the last four or five federal administrations.... :)


  There, I agree.  Using those resources for something beside's monitoring
your local police department chief's kiddie porn collections would be a good
use of something that WAS paid for by the public.


> >   Bullshit.  Just about any agreement (SLA, TOS, AUP, etc.) already
> > has exceptions for activity which harms the operator's network.
> Oh, good. Well then, shut off the offending ISP's even if you have
> peering agreements with them.  I'm sure you won't get sued. :)


  Yep.  Sure will.  And thanks to the freedom of the United States, they'll
keep you in court for years spending hundreds of thousands.  In the end,
you'll probrably win, unless of course you didn't bother to consider the
contract accepting the money.

  Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20060906/8cdc5eb9/attachment.html