nanog mailing list archives
Re: botted hosts
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
But why do you think it is right to shift the burden on the recipient to block access, when it could be done at the source. Yes, it means that the people getting the cash from the customer would have to actually support said customer by making it non-annoying for them.
Do you want an Internet where your provider decides for you, with whom and when you are allowed to communicate? Or do you want to decide for yourself whether to accept or not accept the communication? There are always at least two customers to the communications. The sender and the recipient. Both the sender and the recipient are paying someone. Both sender and recipient providers are getting "cash." And if you believe your argument, both the sender and receiver are engaged in "cost-shifting." Blocking the communications a priori also prevents the two parties from deciding on a call-by-call basis whether or not they want the communications. If the e-mail is in your bulk mail folder, you can decide what you want. If the e-mail is blocked by the sender's ISP, you don't have the option anymore. A lot of people want to use inexpensive broadband connections, and use mail servers at their university or company. For whatever reason, the university and company mail admins only support port 25. If the ISP blocks port 25, the university and company mail admins loose their choice and have to spend money to upgrade their mail servers to support port 587 or something else. So there is lots of "cost-shifting." Do a google search for universities and mail hosting providers that aren't supporting port 587 and offer to help them update their mail servers. When you are finished, then you can advocate ISPs block port 25.
Current thread:
- Re: botted hosts, (continued)
- Re: botted hosts Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Petri Helenius (Apr 05)
- Re: botted hosts Petri Helenius (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Peter Corlett (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Florian Weimer (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Peter Corlett (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Petri Helenius (Apr 04)
- RE: botted hosts Ejay Hire (Apr 07)
- Re: botted hosts Sean Donelan (Apr 04)
- Message not available
- Re: botted hosts Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 04)
- Re: botted hosts Paul Vixie (Apr 04)
- so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] Gadi Evron (Apr 04)
- Re: so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] J.D. Falk (Apr 04)
- Re: so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] Gadi Evron (Apr 04)
- Re: so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] Petri Helenius (Apr 04)
- Message not available
- Re: so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 04)
- Re: so, how would you justify giving users security? [was: Re: botted hosts] John Dupuy (Apr 04)