Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Comcast and SORBS



discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
>> discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
>>>> Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?
>>>
>>> Why do I care if they do?  I'm not a business, and I'm not using it
>>> commercially...
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that the post to which I was responding specifically
>> mentioned "Joe Tech" as a small business.
>
> Um, I wrote that post, and no it didn't.  Joe Tech is me.  And many
> other people on this list, who want to run their own PERSONAL mail
> server...
>
Looking back, I see that you are correct.  I had missed the "n't" in "isn't
running a business."  My apologies.

>
>>> As for comcast, even if their TOS prohibit running servers, they
>>> tacitly allow it (at least until you become a problem for them).  So
>>> all those arguments about blocking mail based on my TOS are
>>> ridiculous...  What my service provider does and does not allow me
>>> to do is between me and them, and is no one else's business.
>>>
>> Um, no.  Just because they look the other way when competent people
>> run servers is absolutely no reason to conclude that their TOS is
>> ridiculous.
>
> No, that's not what I said.  Read it again.  I said for people to make
> argments that it's acceptable to block my e-mail on the basis of my
> TOS is ridiculous.  That's a matter which is between me and my ISP.
>
So then why even bring up "tacitly allowing them."?  Keep in mind that if
it's their TOS, they get to decide if they're going to block it or not.  And
even if they don't block, it doesn't mean that it's not really against their
TOS, or that they are abdicating any right or responsibility to enforce
their TOS in other ways.  This, of course, has no effect on anyone else's
right to refise traffic from your address.

>>> Arguments based on blocking spam from abusing parties are more
>>> valid, but this is still the wrong solution, and needlessly
>>> penalizes many legitimate users.
>>>
>> This has been examined many times by many people in other fora.
>> Basically, the only way an ISP will clean up their own yard is if
>> they see a financial interest in it.  Losing customers is a
>> financial interest.  There are occasional de facto monopolies, but
>> providers are not prohibited from moving into an area.  Thus, it's
>> not the same as a utility or common carrier.  And even with
>> utilities, you now often have a choice if you don't like the
>> practices of one.
>
> ISP's provide a service to people in thier homes, which these days is
> demanded by most people, and their choices for who provides that
> service is basically limited by who owns the infrastructure to deliver
> that service, and who can get access to it.  That seems an awful lot
> like a utility to me.  I see no difference between ISPs and utilities,
> and your description doesn't provide any distinction.
>
Yes... and no.  In many areas, DSL service is available from a number of
providers - but there's only one company that actually owns the wires (just
as an example).  In contrast, phone companies were often prohibited from
moving into regions based upon local gov't giving exclusive contracts to one
company. When that happens, *THAT* is a problem.

>>>> Sure, I'll agree with that 100%.  Ideally, we should also be able
>>>> to have open relays,
>>>
>>> No, we shouldn't.  This is a relic of a day when this was neccessary
>>> due to the Internet being poorly connected.  That's no longer the
>>> case, and site-to-site mail delivery is basically universally
>>> available.  Under such conditions, open relays provide no benefit,
>>> but do provide lots of opportunity for abuse.
>>>
>> But we should be ABLE to have them.
>
> There is a matter of practicality.  If you have an open relay, it will
> be found and abused.  No one will abuse my mail server, unless they
> employ a pretty talented cracker to break into it.  Thus there's no
> FAIR practical reason to block me specifically.  Blocking everyone
> just because someone MIGHT commit abuse goes against the principles of
> freedom that helped found the United States of America.
>
Perhaps no-one will abuse your mail server.  But the vast majority of PCs
connected to cable modems are not run by competent administrators.
Interestingly, here's a message from another mailing list, discussing SORBS
and listing:

">(See why I do not like such broad brush black lists? They false alarm
>BADLY at times they should not, far too many times.)
>
>
    I must disagree. Unfortunately the number of responsible people on
the other end of cable and DSL modems is vanishingly small compared to
the number of zombie machines that are spewing spam and more viruses. On
a typical day we get abut 340,000 delivery attempts. We block about
110,000 thanks to SORBS. That's per day. I have only gotten 4 or 5 false
positives due to SORBS listings in the last 6 months. (Of 340,000
incoming messages, we pass on 7,400 to our users.)

    So would you have us accept 110,000 garbage messages per day for
less than one a month that are responsible people running their own mail
server on a cable or DSL modem? That would be a great cost to us in
either processing power to analyze the messages with SA and/or lost
productivity for all our users to wade through more junk.

    I'm sorry but you must send mail through your ISP's mail server or
be blocked by an increasing number of mail servers around the Internet.
If your ISP doesn't support using their mail server with your domain,
find another one. My home ISP does, which is one reason I chose them."

This sentiment was echoed by not a few sysadmins handling large servers.

>> I did.  I don't think it says what you think it says.
>> Unlike in the days when AT&T ruled all the phone lines, there are no
>> real monopolies in this business, except to the extent that
>> competing companies do not choose to move into an area.
>
> Rich's post says exactly what I think it says.
>
> A monopoly is a business with no competition.  It doesn't matter what
> the reasons are.  If I want high-speed access, and I have only one
> choice, then in my market they are a monopoly.  From the consumer's
> perspective, if there are choices, but there is no discernable
> difference between them, it is the same as being a monopoly.
>
De facto, you're correct, but the term means more than just happenstance.
It refers to exclusive control of the area, often enforced by law or
contract.  If other providers *choose* not to move into your area because
they can't make any money there, should they be compelled to do so to serve
your interests?

>> Basically, they don't see a compelling business reason to do so.
>
> Right, because the barriers to enter the market are high.  I believe
> it was Keynes who suggested that this is a good example of where
> government intervetion is required to ensure the availability of real
> competition in the market.

So you are suggesting that other companies be compelled to offer service to
provide competition in that area?  Is it in the government interest to make
sure companies lose money?  Or are they supposed to somehow force the one
company that DOES do business in the area to change their practices to
somehow make entry easier for others?  Or is it the government's job to
force the owner of the wires (which may or may not be the provider) to lower
their rates to let others come in, when their rates don't seem too high for
the one company in the area?  See previous question on losing money.

 -Don





BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org