Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon vs. Europe

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-knows-the-truth dept.

Censorship 63

mikrorechner writes "The Register has a story about Verizon blocking all incoming email from Europe since 22 December. Why? To reduce spam. I know that some providers block countries like South Korea by default, but I was not aware that Europe was seen as a major spam source. Well, it seems Verizon knows better..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Typo? (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384357)


Are you sure they didn't mis-spell China?

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic... (4, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384361)

I was considering blocking the entire IP range for the US, since I never get anything other than spam from there.

Re:Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic... (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384583)

If you do not receive desirable email from the U.S., that's probably a good idea. I block all email from IPs listed in LACNIC, APNIC, and RIPE. Reduces spam by up to 80 percent some days.

Re:Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic... (1)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387580)

I was considering blocking the entire IP range for the US, since I never get anything other than spam from there.

Not surprising, since they account for more than 50% of all spam [spamhaus.org] , according to spamhaus.

D3CR.E4SE Y0.UR SP4M BY 0V3R 5O%!
ASK US HOW!

Re:Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic... (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387924)

That's actually not a bad idea. Personally I blocked the entirety of the Netherlands (80.0.0.0 /8) as I kept getting spam from there, and don't have any reason to get legitimate email from there. If you don't ever expect to get legitimate email from a country and keep getting spam from that netblock, blackhole it.
Now if I could just get one of my friends to switch from Comcast I'd dump that spam laden network in the blackhole as well.

lets just (1, Funny)

jago25_98 (566531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384380)

block everywhere

well, it would be useful to have source country flagged up

is the uk included I wonder hehe

Re:lets just (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384457)

Yes, the UK is included in the block - The Reg mention that they themselves are getting their emails to Verizon customers blocked, for example.

"If it's really important you might want to make a (1)

ttakah (847860) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384395)

But I can't speak French.
Nor English.

Nothing new (1)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384410)

Since Europe doesn't bend over [fsf.org] as easily as certain other continents, I believe that Verizon should just learn to respect citizens, for it has no other choice if it is going to survive in a truly free society or face serious consequences (trade sanctions, anyone?). This is how capitalism is meant to work, but Verizon might have some trouble to understand it having been living under the pro-corporation anti-individual government umbrella for so long. This is nothing new, a lot of corporations had to change their shady laissez-passer tactics, there is no reason to believe that Verizon is going to be different.

Native language spam (3, Interesting)

GtKincaid (820642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384447)

Living in europe , and having several difrent european email address , i cant recall one bit of spam that came from the EU .. im not saying it dosnt exist but logicaly since i have a .de email address (germany)
why is all my spam in American english (im not german i only live here) but everyone i talk to around here gets a vast marjority of the spam from companys in the USA........anyway...

Verizons policy seems to be the equvilent of chopping off your legs because you have a rash on you right big toe!

Re:Native language spam (2, Interesting)

hankwang (413283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384480)

i cant recall one bit of spam that came from the EU

I think the issue is about zombies; internet-connected home computers with a trojan that sends spam with a different From address. Trace the IP addresses in the headers and see whether they really don't come from within the EU. (Spamcop.net can do this job for you, and detect forged headers)

Re:Native language spam (1)

sofar (317980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384562)

That's a load of BS. If that truly was the case then they would be doing the world a big favour of blocking entire subnets of comcast and aol blocks. Maybe that one or two european ISPs aren't willing to cooperate to shutdown rogue accounts but the large part of western-european ISP's *shut down accounts too fast* (see ffii-europe newsletters).

Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play? (2, Insightful)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384629)

I have read repeatedly here and elsewhere that most spam comes from "spam zombie" machines "pwned" via the machinations of malicious virus writers. Ergo, a machine spewing viruses via email is (a) a spam source in training and (b) attempting to create other zombies/spam sources. It therefore seems logical that any ISP serious about fighting spam would welcome reports of subscribers spewing viruses, whereby to notify the subscriber of the infection and/or suspend the account until the problem is fixed. On the assumption that the latter point is true (which I doubt), why do SpamCop and other spam reporting outfits refuse to report/notify ISPs about viruses spewing from their mail servers? If the number of owned machines is as represented, it seems that a huge step toward controlling spam would be identifying and fixing said machines or suspending their ISP accounts BEFORE they start spewing spam. (Note to trolls: Please do not start up about "lusers" not knowing how to identify the true ISP of an infected account and all that. SpamCop, for one, does this automatically based on IP address, so, the mechanism for reporting viruses to the source ISP is the same as for reporting spam.)

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385132)

I feel like pulling out the form why your solution combatting spam won't work, though i'll spare everyone from that. Do you know that 99% of the ISPs never reply to anything sent to abuse@*? To be honest, in most cases they don't have the infrastructure for that, but the fact is a fact, they aren't replying. And even if they would reply, would they do anything? ISPs need to change first by enforcing stricter rules on them.

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385240)

"ISPs need to change first by enforcing stricter rules on them."

I agree wholeheartedly.

The TOS should state:

If you sign up with us and we learn you are spamming from our servers, you agree to pay us $10 for each spam email.

You must present proof of identity to get a broadband account (makes it it easier to find/presecute/sue spammers).

Non-commercial accounts are limited to 100 outgoing emails per 24-hour period. If you have a legitimate need to send more than 100 emails daily, contact our Commercial Accounts department.

Last, if we detect ONE email from your account bearing a virus, your account will be suspended until you demonstrate your machine is virus-free, and has a firewall and up-to-date anti-virus software in place.

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403573)

100 messages per 24 hour period? I know single users who go well above that.

I run a mailing list with 1000 users on it. If a topic gets a lot of messages on a good day there may be 50 replies, so that's 50,000 to start with. Non spam, non commercial.

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (1)

_iris (92554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385659)

If you want to upset the market forces that push ISPs toward ignoring spammers, launch a DoS against their customer service desk. Get on IRC and start recruiting a cadre of 15 year olds whose parents don't pay close attention to the phone bill and have them repeatedly call the ISP with bogus questions -- or just keep calling to say "The machine on your network with IP ###.###.###.### is spewing viruses. Please blackhole it now."

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (1)

The FooMiester (466716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11390674)

I actually do something very similar. I email the following accounts:

abuse, admin, customerservice, help, helpdesk, sales, service, support, tech, techsupport, and root.

I figure one of those has to be checked by someone who cares.

Ohh, and I forward the entire message.

Re:Trojans = SPAM, so why won't SpamCop et al play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11423136)

If zombies and trojans are the real source of spam, then the obvious solution is that ISPs should block all outbound traffic directed to port 25 on external addresses. (These zombies, as a rule, to use the ISPs own SMTP server, but send the spam directly to the recipients MX server).

This would immediately solve the zombie problem, and they only people who would be inconvenienced would be the 5% of technically competent people who might be legitimately running their own SMTP server, and even for them, it should be fairly trivial to work around.

Re:Native language spam (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384577)

"why is all my spam in American english "

I can think of at least a couple of possibilities:

- A lot of Americans have a lot of disposable income.
- While the Internet is international, it did start primarily in American English.

Re:Native language spam (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387273)

why is all my spam in American english

I received some spam in Turkish back in the day. I was working for a company with many international clients so I went to the trouble of getting it translated by a friend from there. His response was "penis enlargement." :)

Re:Native language spam (2)

soliptic (665417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387326)

True, true.

Actually, you're (maybe) slightly wrong - I get tons of Spanish language spam. But, of course, that isnt necessarily coming from the EU -- it could easily be coming from the dozens of ex-colonial countries in Africa, Central & Southern America which speak Spanish.

On the other hand, even the Spanish spam is vastly outweighed by the US spam.

It's nothing but a slew of American mortgages, American "meds" (never heard anybody use the term here, also there is no market because there arent millions of people hooked on Valium, Prozac, etc), degrees to good on your "resume", etc, etc.

Fix up, guys.

What is it about Verizon? (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384475)

Virtually every story I hear about Verizon involves them blocking this, censoring that, outlawing the other. They seem to be the biggest control freaks in the telecommunications industry, and I used to live in Britain and had to put up with British Telecom, so trust me, I don't mean that lightly.

Maybe it's time to turn "Verizon" into a verb. As in:

I can't get to this website, either it's down or the firewall admin's verizoned it.

Damn it, this music download shop is totally verizoned, I can't even burn these files to a CD!
If you're planning to get to West Palm Beach today you might want to take the turnpike, I hear they've verizoned half of I-95 due to construction.
BTW, just to remind people 'cos this comes up a lot. While Verizon and Verisign are both power-mad groups with some connection to communications, they're not the same company. [slashdot.org] Thank you.

Hopefully (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384528)

hopefully, your insightful post won't be verizoned down to -1.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (3, Funny)

some guy I know (229718) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384971)

I've noticed that companies whose name begins with the letter "V" can't be trusted.
For example, I have had business with about a dozen car dealerships.
The only two that I had trouble with had names beginning with the letter "V".
I don't do business any more with companies whose names begin with the letter "V".
I would advise everyone else to do the same.

Oh, yeah, and the Van Allen Belt contains radiation that is dangerous or lethal to astronauts.
Coincidence?
I think not!

Also, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" was the worst Star Trek movie evar.
So don't trust the letter "V", even when it means "5".

Re:What is it about Verizon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11385022)

Good point. And there's also the mini-series "V". Not only did it feature aliens trying to take over the world (bad) but it also has to go down as one of the most horribly acted and cheesy "sci-fi" productions ever made.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (1)

chaoaretasty (701798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385523)

I take your V and raise you a Battlefield Earth.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11411612)

Jane Badler (the queen bitch lizard lady) was hot.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11388105)

Verio came and bought our company, amongst 40 others. Ours had some real promise though -- we were talking about going public on our own. Would've been pretty great.

Verisign.. well, I don't think I have to mention the evils there.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (2, Informative)

pyros (61399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11388019)

Verizon is also the company that stood up the RIAA to say that a John Doe law suit had to be filed so that a subpoena could be issued to force them to reveal subscriber identities, rather than just handing over the identities of all accused subscribers just because the RIAA asked for them.

Re:What is it about Verizon? (1)

EvilMagnus (32878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11394817)

...so, they *do* like blocking stuff just to be difficult, even if it costs them money?

Re:What is it about Verizon? (1)

ohahmisua (828467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11388247)

Subscribers are now sueing Verizon over disabled file transfer via Bluetooth on the Motorola V710 in order to gain more network profit! Now we really have to get information about the capabilities of phones from the wireless operators because their advertisements don't always tell us the complete story.

Speechless (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384538)

Am I alone in sitting here this morning, reading this story, and refusing to belive that even Verizon would do something so stunningly stupid.

Yee Gods!

Re:Speechless (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384848)

Am I alone in ... refusing to belive that even Verizon would do something so stunningly stupid.

Yeah, pretty much. You must not know verizon so well. This is pretty much par for the course for them.

This is a company that thought changing its name would make people not realise they were the same company that had such a bad customer service. I always love how a company changes its name and says "we're changing our name to serve you better!" Umm, yeah, there's a great speech about "what's in a name?"

Anyways, its morning, I'm at work on a holiday (a mostly ignored holiday, but still a holiday), and I'm rambling.

Re:Speechless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11385762)

This is a company that thought changing its name would make people not realise they were the same company that had such a bad customer service.

Which company do you think Verizon is? They are made from about a dozen companies. I've been using them since they bought PrimeCo.

So who did you hate so much? Diamond State Telephone Company, Chesapeake and Potomac (C&P) incorporated, Bell Atlantic, GTE, NYNEX, Bell Atlantic Mobile, AirTouch Cellular, PrimeCo Personal Communications, AirTouch Paging, Vodafone or another part.

Re:Speechless (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385886)

I think it was NYNEX, IIRC. But reading that list is amazing... its a who's who of companies I'd heard bad things about.

Re:Speechless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11397062)

Verizon's name actually came out of Vodafone, who picked the name for their wireless JV ("Verizon Wireless"). Bell atlantic liked the name so much they decided to adopt it themselves.
I seem to recall a similar story of US Air changing their names because some dolt discovered that airlines with "airways" in their name made more profit than those with "air" (around the time of the British Airways partnership)

greylisting? (1)

retards (320893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384635)

They shuld greylist instead, that way at least SOME legit mail would get through.

http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ [puremagic.com]

At the University where i work we cut spam to about 10% of former bulk with Evan Harris' greylisting software 'relaydelay' (thanks Evan!). It let's through all legit mail as long as the sending server follows SMTP-standards and allows for a temporary failure.

Some problems with mailinglistsoftware that uses different envelope senders for each mail, but you can whitelist those servers.

Re:greylisting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11385067)

It let's through all legit mail

"lets".

Re:greylisting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11385156)

O_O greamm3r nazi?

Re:greylisting? (1)

retards (320893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385375)

touché. Shuld should have been should, too. I was in a hurry.

How to avoid solving the problem (2, Insightful)

Anders Andersson (863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387058)

They shuld greylist instead, that way at least SOME legit mail would get through.

Given Verizon's reputation, I'm not sure I'd want them to accept e-mail from me, legit or not (yes, I'm a European). I support the basic idea of rejecting all mail from certain networks, countries or even continents based on past experiences of abuse, except I'd never want my ISP to do it for me without me having a say in the matter. I know approximately from where I can expect legit mail; Verizon can't possibly tell the same for all their users.

I don't send a lot of e-mail these days, and I have yet to see any mail of mine rejected due to my IP address being blacklisted. Should that happen, I sure wouldn't waste my time requesting to be whitelisted. If Verizon or their customers don't want mail from Europe, I won't bother them, regardless of their rationale. The biggest loss is on those uninformed users who aren't getting the service they have paid for. Rather than help Verizon identify a legit mail sender, I'd help my friends identify a legit mail provider, perhaps by rejecting their mail until they take notice.

At the University where i work we cut spam to about 10% of former bulk with Evan Harris' greylisting software 'relaydelay' (thanks Evan!). It let's through all legit mail as long as the sending server follows SMTP-standards and allows for a temporary failure.

"Greylisting" (a rather misleading word, as there is no "list" in the usual sense involved, but rather a delay mechanism) happens to work today only because such a small fraction of the Internet uses that method. Forget the "legit" part; it lets through all mail as long as the sending server follows the SMTP standard and allows for a temporary failure. When spammers find out they will be 50 percent more profitable by allowing for temporary failures, they will do so, and "greylisting" will have no effect beyond that slight delay. When a majority of open relays were either closed or blacklisted in the past, spammers managed to overcome that problem. They will overcome this one too.

I myself work at a university where "greylisting" is used, and it does indeed work - for now. It's however a very selfish way of protecting your mailbox, because you have to discourage the rest of the Internet from employing it in order for it to remain efficient, much like antibiotics...

Some problems with mailinglistsoftware that uses different envelope senders for each mail, but you can whitelist those servers.

A cure worse than the disease. If you have to manually keep track of every legit server that is inconvenienced by the delay, then you are going to forget a few of them, and they may find it easier to either adjust their envelope senders or drop you from their mailing list, than to remind umpteen list members of that forgotten whitelisting.

Bringing up manual whitelisting merely implies that the automatic mechanism isn't working properly. Consider that any automatic mail filtering mechanism, including the extreme one of rejecting any and all mail from anywhere on the Internet, will actually "work" if you can manually whitelist every legit sender. It then comes down to how much of the mail you receive requires manual intervention, and how much can be dealt with automatically.

So how do I... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 9 years ago | (#11384989)

How can I block emial from Verizion? I get a lot of spam from the US, particularly them, and I don't know anyone using their mail servers.

Gmail needs an option to block IP ranges...

Re:So how do I... (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385324)

Start by blocking (or treating as spam) all email from addresses with "verizon" in them. Beyond that, try using ARIN http://www.arin.net/ [arin.net] and IP registry lists like this http://www.cert.mil/techtips/whois_by_ipaddr.htm [cert.mil] to identify and block IP address ranges registered to Verizon.

seems fair (2, Interesting)

martin (1336) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385091)

alot of people block email from verizon (or containing verizon URL's in the body) as they seem to host alot of spammers :-)

Evidence. (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11393598)

From yesterdays rejection log:

2005-01-17 09:08:05 H=wbar18-tmp1-4-10-136-122.tmp1.dsl-verizon.net [4.10.136.122] F= rejected RCPT : 4.10.136.122 is listed at bl.spamcop.net

My emphasis.

Spam Is No Big Deal (1)

jgartin (177959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385265)

I really don't understand all of this paranoia over spam--especially on slashdot. You just have to be an intelligent internet user to avoid getting spam. I only get 2-3 a week--these are easily deleted. I don't run any special software or anything. Just don't give your email address to people you don't trust. If there's a form that requires an email address, put in a fake one. It's really pretty easy.

Re:Spam Is No Big Deal (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385389)

"Just don't give your email address to people you don't trust."

Would that life was so simple.

If your job requires that people be able to email you and you address is therefore made public, you do not have a lot of options. That's one of the reasons for "paranoia over spam." Dealing with it costs business tons of time, money, and lost productivity.

E-mail Is No Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11385662)

If there's a form that requires an email address, put in a fake one. It's really pretty easy.

Then how are they going to e-mail me? You "easy" solution is to hardly use e-mail. Of course I still get spam at accounts I've never given to anyone. If I want to eleminate spam, I should delete all my e-mail accounts.

That's it for now, I'm off to go sell my car so I can avoid car accidents.

Re:Spam Is No Big Deal (2, Insightful)

jpatters (883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11386083)

That's easy for you to say. I get 150 spams sent to my personal email address every day. Of course, I have had the same address since 1992, two years before Canter and Siegel began their usenet barrage. Taking your steps now would be the ultimate example of closing the barn door after the cows have wandered off.

Re:Spam Is No Big Deal (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 9 years ago | (#11386900)

Lucky you. Some people get hundreds per day despite their best efforts to keep their address out of the hands of spammers. Giving your email address only to people you trust isn't enough. All it takes is one email virus to harvest addresses from their address book and suddenly you're on spam lists.

It never ceases to amaze me (1)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11393563)

I really don't understand all of this paranoia over spam--especially on slashdot. You just have to be an intelligent internet user to avoid getting spam. I only get 2-3 a week--these are easily deleted. I don't run any special software or anything. Just don't give your email address to people you don't trust. If there's a form that requires an email address, put in a fake one. It's really pretty easy.

Specifically the arrogance of some of you "spam isn't so bad, you can deal with it" dudes.

First of all: Why the fuck should I be forced to buy software, services invest my time and resources just so a couple hundred lowlifes can get rich quick by shitting into the communal water supply.

Maybe spam is not a problem for you, but I can assure you that it's a helluva problem and a massively costly one for the entire internet and all its legitimate users.

There is no need to thank me.

Re:Spam Is No Big Deal (1)

RNelson (567188) | more than 9 years ago | (#11410503)

Why put a fake one when a real one will work as well [mailinator.com] ? :)

Email Should be granted post priority (1)

Bruha (412869) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385273)

"If it's really important you should call"

It's this excuse that makes me say that email should be given the same priority as postal mail. I was a verizon user and this would not of affected me in the slightest becuase I've always used external IMAP email services and I will when the fiber is ran to my house in a few weeks.

Email is a value added service and if you truely want email to work dont let verizon handle it just get a gmail account or yahoo. Or even Runbox.com which of course I believe is a european ip but works great for IMAP/Pop3 for me.

Re:Email Should be granted post priority (1)

Jondaley (194380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11386577)

I would have called, but your VOIP phone is blocking my packets, since it thinks they are spam.

(:

Terrible (1)

DrBytes (695593) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385570)

So now I know why friends aren't responding. This is pretty poor, email ought to be an open way to communicate on the internet. I wouldn't stand for this crap; it's liek the post office would throw away the letters of your aunt because she lives in Europe. Well, back to writting good old letters.

Self-managed email (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385595)

This kind of thing is exactly why infrastructure companies should play little or no part in email, beyond setting up MX records. Let users themselves decide how they want to manage email.

Back when everyone was on dial-up and had dynamic IP addresses, there were legitimate grounds for hosting a central email server. However, this shouldn't be necessary for DSL, except that most ISPs have policies outlawing the running of SMTP servers despite the fact that users who do so are using less of their resources and can control email the way they choose.

What we need is to encourage, not discourage, people from doing this. Encourage the $100 router/gateway device manufacturers to include little incoming SMTP and POP/IMAP servers in their devices. Remove the restrictions in AUPs that prevent this kind of thing. Set up MX records so that customer.isp.net's email is routed to them. With DSL being always-on, recognize it with the technology and scrap dynamic IP.

These types of steps will make a dramatic difference in use of the 'net:

  • Unsecured SMTP servers that are enabled by default and relay by default will become a thing of the past because ordinary users will be installing actual, useful software for the same port.
  • Fighting spam will become easier. The techniques used by the typical own-domain user - creating special addresses for entities to contact you that can be closed down if that entity ever passes on that address - will become common, normal, and easy. Unless you've used such a system, you have no idea how effective it is.
  • Spammers will suddenly have to send every email one time per recipient, rather than in batches as they do today. The resources required by the average spammer will increase dramatically with little gain to them. Regular commercial third-party spamming will, for the most part, die off.
  • With static IP, users will gain some accountability. Net abusers can simply be firewalled off from their victims.
  • The load on ISP servers will be dramatically reduced. The reduction in equipment and maintenance should translate into cost savings.
Regular IMAP servers will still be maintained by ISPs for dial-up users, but ISPs that make dumb decisions would no longer be in a position to cripple end users in quite the way described here.

Re:Self-managed email (1)

egburr (141740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11385715)

I would love for this to happen. I maintain my own mail server behind my cable modem and have gone to great pains to make sure it isn't an open relay and have never received any indication that it has been abused in any way. I specifically picked an ISP that allowed this (earthlink cable).

The biggest problem I run into is that my IP address is included in a range that is on some list somewhere as a dynamic address (yes, it is a DHCP non-static address that has changed ONE time in three years), and about once every 5 or 6 months, someone in my family encounters a bounce from yet another company that won't accept our mail because of that. I have to route mail to those companies through my ISP's server. I've got 5 companies in that list now, and the annoying thing is my ISP was the first one in the list.

If earthlink would offer a static IP on cable, I would get it quick. I don't understand why they don't. My dynamic IP has only changed once in three years, and that occurred after a 10 day power outage from an ice storm.

Re:Self-managed email (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11389571)

I have never understood why so many ISPs provide dynamic IP addresses on DSL. It made sense with dial-up, allocate an IP address to each dial-in port and use this for the customer who is connecting via that port. But with DSL, is it not easier to also allocate a fixed IP address to each physical DSLAM port and hence to each customer's connection?

The ISP I use only provides static IP addresses, and welcomes customers using their own incoming and outgoing SMTP servers.

Re:Self-managed email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11423418)

That's a lovely idea - for the 5% of people who want their computer to be their hobby.

The vast majority of users who are now signing up for DSL or Cable internet in increasing numbers don't want to to run their own mail servers (Can you say AOL users, Yahoo! Broadband users, etc, etc?). Sure they have "always on" connections - but they don't leave their computers turned on all the time. And they only time any of them need direct access to port 25 on any host besides their ISPs smtp server is when they're infected with a virus.

No response from Verizon (1)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11387894)

El Reg still remains blocked at the time of writing. ... At the time of writing Verizon has not responded to our requests for comment.

Is it just me... or does this seem like a "Here's your sign" comment to anyone else?

To those who don't get it: The Register says it remains blocked at the time of writing. Only a sentence later they write that they haven't received any response from Verizon. I'm willing to bet they emailed Verizon (Who is still blocking them) and their request for comments ended up in the bit bucket.

Amsterdam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11389382)

I run a small hosting company. We get our bandwidth from a small datacenter. The datacenter main client is heavily regulated by the government. Anyway, We are somewhat forced to live with the policies dictated by this much larger customer.

The datacenters admin at teh request of large client) blocks most all traffic from SE Asia (including a few Austraillian ISPs) as well as a large chunk of Europe. According to ARIN, The blocked ranges actually orginate in Amstrdam; however, they are used by ISPs in England, France and Germany. And probably others.

Yes SPAM is a big part fo it, but the datacenter guy said they were seeing a lot of apparent DDOS attacks, a variety of exploit attempts, from my own experience, it seemed like a lot of web site shanigans were coming from thoses ranges too.

I must admit that problems related to cracking diminished greatly after the new firewall settings where added. Though Euro-customers and Aussies were a little peaved.

Not Just Europe (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11390404)

My server is blocked too. It's situated in White Plains, NY.

The ISP, 1&1, is largely a UK/Germany ISP, so perhaps that's why they're on the "Europe" list, but a traceroute shows my machine is not in Europe. See IP addresses don't encode geographic location information, (Verizon - that's you, bozo).

My server isn't on any of the DNSRBL lists, is pretty tightly run, and publishes SPF records.

So, my grandpa can't get photos of his great-granddaughter on his e-mail account. Lovely. I'm suggesting he switch to a different DSL provider or a cable modem. This is the kind of thing an 80-year-old has little patience for.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?