(quoted text below reformatted to cure severe long/short-itis). On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote: >Hello,
>This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for >resources. As a long time FreeBSD admin/user I know this is a large, >diverse, and eloquent community of technical users. I hope someone can >point me to a resource or group of users that address this policy. >Within the last two months both AOL and Time Warner Road Runner have >implemented port 25 blocks from hosts with IP addresses in the "dynamic >address space". Time Warner claims other major ISPs are/will be >implementing the same policy. This ``dynamic address space'' is generally devoted to dialup connections, and DHCP assigned IPs for broadband customers, most of whom are restricted by their contracts from running any servers. Their customers are supposed to send all outgoing mail out through their provider's mail servers. >Is anyone else uneasy with this trend? Maybe it's just me and I don't like >being discriminated against because I don't have the money to own static IP >addresses. One would think groups of responsible and technically competent >users would be organizing against this trend and attempting to make their >voice heard. For every *bsd/Linux/Unix user who has enough clue to run servers properly, there are thousands of clueless folks who connect their Microsoft Windows viruses directly to the Internet where they're subject to abuse from the outside world. It wouldn't be so bad if all the abusers could do is steal data or corrupt the end-user's machines, and couldn't use them as launch points for further abuse. When the ``Code Red'' and ``Nimda'' worms were at their height, most of the traffic in our Apache logs originated came the major U.S. cable provider's networks. This prompted several of the cable providers to start blocking port 80 to their customer's systems which cut this source of traffic down significantly. Our solution for our customers who're running on dynamic broadband connections is to set up their mail to use uucp over TCP with domains that MX through our servers here. I've never had any problems with cable or DSL providers blocking the uucp ports. A secondary benefit is that the customer's e-mail addresses haven't changed in the @HOME->ATTBI->COMCAST transitions over the last year or so. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``When dealing with any spammer, one must always keep in mind that you are dealing with someone who makes their living through forgery, fraud, theft, subterfuge and obfuscation. Stated simply, spammers lie.'' David Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"