Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: The home user problem returns
From: "Brian Loe" <knobdy () stjoelive com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:58:11 -0500
If Ed WANTS to learn, he'll learn. If Ed wants his porn, you're annoying him, go away.That's completely true. No argument here at all.
What more can be done then? The opportunities for end users to learn are boundless - if they choose to do it. You just agreed that you can't make them learn so maybe we should just drop this from the options list.
Why has spam control become the responsibility of the ISP?Unless it'soriginating from your network - and you have specificallydisallowedsuch usage on your network via contractual agreementsbetween you andthe customer - why do you care how much spam your customersget? Onlyas an add-on service should an ISP be involved.Haven't you heard? Spam is a global problem. Many of the means of dealing with spam involve voluntary cooperation from as many people as possible to combat the problem. That cooperation entails such things as outbound port 25 blocks at ISPs.
As I said, "Unless it's originating from your network..." I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I hate most spam filters as well. If ISPs stopped allowing spam to be sent, I would be able to get ALL of my e-mail that I want and none to little that I don't.
As for the recipient of the spam. Most ISPs now do a basic level of inbound spam filtration, just to ease the load on their mail servers, let alone appease angry customers.
In my opinion, that's where they make their mistake. Once they/you accept a certain amount of liability you own it all.
Most ISPs also offer a subscription anti-spam service to those that want it. If you don't want to subscribe to the anti-spam service, I assure you that there is still tons left over after the ISP's basic filtering- you'll get all the spam you handle.
I don't subscribe, and I get very little spam. I'm a "smart" e-mail user and receive my spam elsewhere. :) Further, I can't chance losing e-mails that are misunderstood by whatever filtering system my ISP is using.
I guess I'm still confused. What issues are you havingbecause of yourcustomer's lack of security? Loss of bandwidth? Attacks on your internal network? What, exactly, is the result of yourcustomers being bad? I'll give you some examples in a sec, but first, since we are tossing quotes around, here's one for you, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I know that I have to do my part and hope that others do theirs. As a result the problem will diminish overall.
Well, I haven't thrown any quotes around yet, but a couple just came to mind: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (don't know who) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin
Here's an example that's not related to Internet access and bandwidth. In North America (and starting to become a problem in most developed nations), smoking is becoming a huge problem. Smoking is known to be linked to many forms of cancer, birth defects, gum disease, many respiratory diseases, etc, etc. - it's a really long list. Some people consider smoking to be a personal choice, so lets run with that.
I'm one of them, so lets. However I have to correct your theory here, smoking is much more of a problem in underdeveloped countries - poor people smoke, always have, always will.
My first argument pertains more to Canada and other countries that have
public
medical systems.
Why? It certainly helps make your point but has nothing to do with our discussion. In fact, your arguing for the ISP to play mom and dad aligns itself nicely with the philosophies behind state health care.
When enough people choose to smoke, they are placing an unnecessary burden on the public medical system, thereby degrading it for everyone else.
How so? They're paying taxes on every tobacco product they buy. They die before being kept alive in a nursing home for 10 years. As Rush is fond of point out - cause it's true, which makes him right - smokers SAVE countries money by paying taxes and then dying before they collect!
You may be one of those militant smokers that feels it is their right to smoke wherever they please.
Only every place I paid for or have control of. :)
If you decide you want to smoke in public, you may be smoking next to
someone
that is an asthmatic.
That would be rude of me, but if I'm in a designated smoking area, rude of him/her.
It's well known that second hand smoke is just as deadly, if not more so, than the smoke you pull through your filter - if you and other militant smokers get their way, non smokers are now suffering the same health problems that are common amongst smokers.
Wrong on several levels, here's a few. The filter is more deadly than anything in the tobacco - I smoke home-rolls with no filter - outside of the chemicals the government has mandated be put into the product to help it burn and other things. As for second-hand smoke, it has NEVER been PROVEN to cause anything, and especially so in the great outdoors. They've done many studies but nothing that has ever been conclusive or even fair. Most of these studies have been debunked, discredited or called into serious question by real scientists (who also don't like smoking, but have some feelings toward professional integrity). Seems outrageous, given the media on the subject, but if its not true let me fall over dead now.
Other people may be enjoying the fresh air or a good meal and you are denying them that. The effect can even be as simple as making someone else's clothes stink. No matter how you look at it, this is more than just your problem - you are involving other people that may not want to have anything to do with you.
All parties are making a choice. The people who don't want to be near my smoking should choose a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking or sit in the non-smoking section. It's their/your choice and not my responsibility. You don't walk into a place not owned or controlled by you and impose your will on everyone there. In some places I know, that'd get you taken out back...
I promised I'd give you an example relating to your use of your Internet connection. Here's one really good example for you.
<SNIP>
I then kicked myself for not having implemented rate limiting and really basic spam filtering on our outbound smtp relay like I had planned to and set about working out how I was going to do that. It turns out that it not feasible with our current solution, so this week I'm working on building a new mail server that will allow me to do the egress filtering I need to do. All in all, the fact that there weren't more safe guards in place cost us time and money and affected a fair number of customers. It has also pulled me away from other important work and thus I get further behind. If that doesn't paint a clear enough picture of why you should not be able to have a wide open un-restricted pipe of your own, let me know and I'll give you some more examples.
More then, please. This is an example of a user getting hacked and outbound traffic not being monitored - which as I stated originally, I agree is your responsibility. It does not represent the reasoning behind my not being "allowed" to use Shareaza or download bit torrent files all day long. It doesn't qualify as an excuse for you to spy on my traffic (that isn't hitting you in the way of outbound e-mail, scans, etc.) or throttle it down below advertised, contracted and bought levels. For me, and ISP should only respond to attacks on itself. This includes outbound attacks (such as the bot you described) since it is using your mail server and your IP range and thereby effecting your business. It also includes attacks on your network appliances and servers. The people responsible should be hunted down and killed. <g> BUT, and this is no small but, that does not give you cause to play the part of my mom without even being asked to do so! In my opinion anyway... _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Re: The home user problem returns, (continued)
- Re: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns R. DuFresne (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns David Lang (Sep 14)
- Re: The home user problem returns mason (Sep 14)
- Re: The home user problem returns David Lang (Sep 14)
- RE: The home user problem returns Bill Royds (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Hile . William (Sep 22)
- RE: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Brian Loe (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns R. DuFresne (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns lordchariot (Sep 13)
- Re: The home user problem returns Mason Schmitt (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns hermit921 (Sep 13)
- RE: The home user problem returns Jim Seymour (Sep 13)
- Mitigating MS risks [Was: home users] Tina Bird (Sep 14)