Webnazis R Us

[David A. Bandel]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:34:29 -0700
Bill Campbell <linux-sxs at celestial.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:50:28PM -0500, David A. Bandel wrote:
> >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:46:41 -0700
> ...
> >We had a little debate going over Internet Service Deniers on the
> >ISP-Linux list.  A number of ISPs supported denying outgoing ports
> >(mostly 25).  While I don't like some traffic, denying ports is not
> >the way to stop this nonsense.
> 
> On the contrary, outgoing port 25 blocking from dialups was the only
> thing that put a dent in the spam from major dialup wholesalers like
> uu.net and sprint.  The vast majority of an ISP's dialup customers
> wouldn't have a clue how to configure their mailer to go to anything
> except their IPS's mail servers (and often have a difficult time
> figuring out how to get that set up correctly :-).  These same
> clueless customers are often running systems which are vulnerable to
> abuse from outsiders, either via open proxies, misconfigured or
> unconfigured MTAs, or just plain having their machines cracked and
> taken over.  Customers with a clue can get fixed IP addresses that are
> outside the dynamic dialup pools, and aren't blocked.
> 
> I have been setting up regional ISPs all over the U.S. since 1994, and
> in that time have had perhaps a dozen requests for fixed IPs that
> weren't blocked (other than ISP employees who need fixed IPs for
> access to parts of the system for admin that aren't allowed to normal
> customers).
> 
> BTW:  The spam levels from the AT&T/Comcast 12.xxx.xxx.xxx IP
> addresses have gone up dramatically (orders of magnitude) since ATTBI
> took over from at HOME, and I would bet this is because @HOME blocked
> outgoing traffic on port 25 while ATTBI/Comcast don't.  One major
> difference is that the @HOME abuse desk actually did something about
> spam and abuse complaints while they're now totally ignored.

The above notwithstanding:
1.  blocking is denying a service, not providing it
2.  travelers who go to a hotel often don't know the mail servers of
whatever service is providing broadband to a hotel, they need to be able
to connect back to their own mail servers
3.  most terms of service prohibit spam (or allowing your systems to be
used for it). Isn't it time people were made responsible for their own
messes?  Disconnect them.
4.  having been on the blocked side of services (24 ports blocked by the
Gov't of Panama that are used for VoIP), I know that that is worse than
not blocking ports that may be abused (again, make the system owners
responsible with fines if necessary).

You know spammers only stay in business because someone pays them to
spam.  I say fine heavily the folks who pay spammers -- make it hurt
their busines, make hiring spammers illegal.  If spammers have no one
paying them to spam they'll have to get real jobs.  ALL spams have a
link (address/phone/URL) to somewhere that wants to make money.  That's
the target.  Spam is a byproduct of stupidity and laziness.  Some
stupid/lazy companies include Norton.  I get spam from them regularly
about how they can help keep my Windoze systems virus free (didn't know
X windows had viruses).

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
-- 
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
		Nemesis Racing Team motto
GPG key autoresponder:  mailto:david_key at pananix.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/pipermail/linux-users/attachments/20030701/00469ace/attachment.pgp