Comcast and SORBS

[Don Levey]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:41:36AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
>>> I just flat-out disagree with your assertion that Comcast should
>>> block outbound port 25 in the interest of spam reduction.
>>>
>> Fair enough; my experience has been different.  Certainly if you've
>> got a business relying on that service, you should have a business
>> account with the ISP, which normally includes a fixed IP.
>
> Where does that leave Joe Tech, who isn't a business, and can't afford
> to pay business rates, but still wants to run his own site?  He has
> all the knowledge necessary to run his own mail server, and doesn't
> want his mail going through is ISP's mail server, for whatever
> reasons...  All he needs is a connection to the rest of the world, and
> an ISP that will leave him alone.  But the fact is, there is a dearth
> of providers who are amenable to such people.  If you're lucky enough
> to be able to get Speakeasy DSL where you live, you might be in
> business.  Otherwise, AFAIK, you're basically screwed.
>
Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?  It's a
business relationship between you and the ISP, which is bound by the terms
of the contract.  If the contract does not specify it, they're under no
obligation to provide it.  What you're saying is that there's a need for an
ISP which will provide a raw connection and leave you alone.  IIRC,
SpeakEasy is like that - and they charge a little more than the big ISPs.
But you can't complain that if a suitable partner isn't there, that the
unsuitable partner must conform to your business needs and not theirs.

Perhaps you are screwed.  I'd like to open a custom woodworking business
with high-end tools, a large showroom and shop, etc.  But the money isn't
there.  In one sense, I'm screwed - but that doesn't mean that I have the
right to HAVE all that, just the right to TRY (and an equal opportunity to
do so).

And by the way - the additional $$ for a statis IP for RCN (on a residential
account) is $20/month.  That's $240 a year.  If your business is so close to
the line that you must not only commit fraud (run a business on a home line,
in violation of the contract) but also cannot afford the additional
$240/year, perhaps the more important thing is to review your business plan
and not rail against your provider.

> Idealistically speaking, it shouldn't be that way.
>
Sure, I'll agree with that 100%.  Ideally, we should also be able to have
open relays, truly anonymous FTP, etc.  But we're not living in that world,
much though we wish we were.  People abuse networks - either purposefully,
or by proxy.  If a specific provider chooses not to keep their part of the
neighborhood clean, I'll make sure that they don't pollute my end of the
neighborhood.

> In practice, blocking spam from dynamic net blocks is not a real
> solution, and spammers will find a way around it, as they always do.
> The only REAL solution is to find a way to make it economically
> non-viable.
>
It is not the *only* solution, but it is a very real, and effective, one.
Yes, economic death will be the only true end of spam - and this is one way
of contributing to that.  The fewer messages they can deliver, the less
money they can make.  Visit news.admin.net-abuse.email sometime, and talk to
the sysadmins from many of the ISPs who use this, and other tools to protect
their network and users from spam and viruses.

> And to add to Rich's argument, almost all of the spam I get is from
> China.
>
Only about 10-20% of mine is from China/Korea, about 5-10% from France and
Russia.  Most is from US-based DSL and cable modems, which do indeed hawk
overseas websites for pirated software, cheap drugs, and porn.  But they're
being sent via US machines.

> And FWIW, in case it's not obvious from my .sig, I am no lover of
> spam or spammers...  I still don't want ISPs blocking port 25.

OK, I understand.  BTW, I forgot to mention last time: unlike phone lines,
internet connections have not been deemed a utility, or a common carrier.  I
don't think we want ISPs to be granted common carrier service, unless you
believe that free speech also compels people and companies to transmit that
speech.  And also, most Terms of Service would be rendered invalid - and
that includes abuse policies.

 -Don