[Dshield] ISP Responsibity...
jayjwa at atr2.ath.cx
Sun Aug 21 15:32:49 GMT 2005
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Abuse wrote:
-> I have no problem with an ISP closing a port if there is a way that will not
-> stop normal web functions from being done. Blocking port 25 to other email
-> servers than the ISPs email server does not stop normal email function it just
-> requires a little configuration change.
That requires more that a little config change, that requires using
someone else's server and therefor, giving up control of your email. There
is alot more to the Internet than just 'the web'. I for one dislike this
webmail that has become so popular with ISP's because it usually requires
to fire up a full X Window environment for, rather than just using a
simple command line command to jot down a quick note to someone. If all
you use is Windows that this probably doesn't make sense, but I like how
easy and fast it is to use the linux console without having to start up an
The ability to mail directly is functionality, and I don't see why I
should lose this functionality being that I am not abusing it. I know I
could "smarthost", but I enjoy running my own server, mails get where they
are going faster, I know what the server said on the other end instead of
assuming the mail made it because I see no more of it, and I don't have to
content with misbehaving spam filters. What I write to people and what
they say back is important to me, and I don't want to lose even one email
of that to some filter that thought something was spam when it wasn't.
If we consider incoming too, then there is even more reason have your own
server, as then I control what can come in at the door. It must be
working, because by and large I don't see much spam, and only a few US
ISP's whom have been cold towards me and of couse Chinanet do a block.
First it was 135-139,445 that all the ISP's started blocking, now many
do/consider blocking 25. If this continues maybe ftp 21/22 is next due it
being 'unsecure' plain text or possibly 6667? That's IRC, and we've all
heard enough of IRC-bots this part week.
If someone wants to block, run a firewall: that services that one person
without hindering everyone else.
-> I am not sure stupidity is the problem, it is ignorance. MS advertises that
-> you do not need to know anything to use Windows so you get a lot of people
-> online that do not have any idea that anything bad could happen. I put most of
-> the blame on MS, they should configure Windows so it is secure for the average
-> no nothing user, but they will not so we have to put up with a lot of zombied
Agreed. It should have been shipped out opposite of what it is currently;
ship all secured and closed up. If you want to run services/servers and
open up access than you should have to learn how to enable it. Hopefully
within that time they will pick up safe habits.
More information about the list