On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:14:28PM +0100, Jez Hancock wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote: <snip> > > 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. > I've read through this thread with some interest but I couldn't find > anywhere any qualification of this 'dynamic address space' you say > AOL et al are blocking - do you have a source for this claim? > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mailin-04.mx.aol.com.: <<< 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic <<< 554- (residential) IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions <<< 554- from this IP address until your ISP removes this IP address from its list <<< 554- of dynamic (residential) IP addresses. For additional information, <<< 554 please visit http://postmaster.info.aol.com. ... while talking to mailin-01.mx.aol.com.: >>> QUIT ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 550 5.7.1 Mail Refused - rr.com_Dynamic_Range - See http://security.rr.com/dynamic.htm) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to kcmx02.mgw.rr.com.: >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <<< 550 5.7.1 Mail Refused - rr.com_Dynamic_Range - See http://security.rr.com/dynamic.htm 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable > > Actually I think there was one reply that mentioned a lot of > netblocks that were being included. If it's the case that those > netblocks are admin'd by companies that do not (pro)actively attempt > to block spam then I agree they should be blocked. Presumably the > larger companies you mention have researched the amount of spam > trapped at their mail gateways over time and are sick at the fact > the numbers haven't dropped over time despite complaints to the > spammer's admin contacts. > To quote Time Warner: "As part of this continuing effort, Road Runner, along with a significant number of other providers, has implemented incoming port 25 blocks of dynamically assigned IP address space, including dialup, DSL, and Cable modem IP addresses. The reason for this is because of the widespread number of high speed subscribers who we have found are infected with trojans such as Jeem, or have open proxy or SMTP applications which allow third parties to hijack them." > > > 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. > I don't think I am uneasy about this - but then again I'm not on a > blacklisted netblock!. Having said this though, if I found my > bandwidth provider was on a blacklist and had no intention of > attempting to get off it I'd probably move straight away anyway. -- > Not everyone has multiple broadband providers to choose from. -- Regards, Doug _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"