[Dshield] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Port Blocking
ed.truitt at etee2k.net
Fri Jun 27 12:16:44 GMT 2003
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 22:01, Doug White wrote:
> Interesting point. For instance Cox Internet-New England put in place just
> yesterday port 25 outbound blocking, requiring users to send outbound mail via
> their smtp server. This new policy affected two of my hosting clients who had
> email accounts connected with their domain name and web site. Both of them tell
> me that they are seeking a new provider.
> What incensed them is that there was no notice, and the provider does not
> mention a thing in the FAQ or policy sections on their own web site. Not to
> mention all the aggravation with my support folks in trying to track down why
> they could not reply to incoming email.
> This supports the point that arbitrary port blocking is not a good thing.
Well, if my ISP started blocking services without warning, I think I
would be a bit P.O.'d myself. In this case, however, the problem is
made worse by not providing any warning, and even worse by not excluding
their hosting clients (who, after all, are PAYING for the privilege of
running their own server.)
This is just bad business-sense. You have to tell people before you
change things on them.
PGP fingerprint: 5368 D25E 468C A250 9833 CCD6 DBAE 9C25 02F9 0AB9
"Note to spammers: my 'delete' key is connected to YOUR ISP.
Also, if you send me UCE, I reserve the right to post your spew
on my Web site, with the appropriate color commentary, so that
others may have a good laugh at your expense."
More information about the list