Re: My [Phil Karn] position on Comcastidiocy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh () hserus net]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:00 PM
To: Phil Karn
Cc: 'Seth Finkelstein'; zwhite () darkstar frop org; arachnid () notdot net; rsk () gsp org; 'Karl Auerbach'; David 
Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] My [Phil Karn] position on Comcastidiocy

Phil Karn [21/01/08 14:09 -0800]:
> I think we might find some common ground here. My objection to port 25 blocking
> (and to blocking in general) comes from its involuntary, heavy-handed and
> arbitrary nature. Were customers able to remove such blocks, ideally through a
> web page without human assistance, my objections would dissipate.

Dave Crocker did point that out. Cust supp nightmare. Clued users tend to
pay a bit extra for static IPs (if at least to get around that pesky little
AUP clause that says "no servers on a home broadband connection)"

And trying to impose port 25 filtering on a per user basis - based on (say)
volumes - can be a nightmare too. Especially when someone like Prof Farber
gets blocked. As this thread shows.

In fact, Dave's put it much better than I could. Unpleasant but necessary
to block port 25 on customer assigned dynamic IP space.

Phil Pennock's comments in another email are very good indeed, but in the
context of the ISP he used to run ops for .. Demon Internet.  [1] Static
IPs and [2] A higher than average percentage of clued customers. You wont
find ISPs who apply blanket port 25 filters on their static IP assignments

        srs

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com