Well, I undestand you all hate OVH, but this really doesn't look like an intended block.
I tested that when I log to my @freenet.de email I am not able to write emails to any domain whose DNS are hosted by OVH. I know plenty of italian companies whose domain zone is at OVH: even if their email is at Google Workspace or somewhere else they currently cannot receive emails from @freenet.de and you are telling me this is something freenet.de done by purpose beucase they didn't want OVH spam? I'll believe that once a freenet.de people will confirm it. Considering OVH is the biggest registar in europe they are not delivering email to most european domains. So, if they blocked the whole OVH ASN at their SMTP server I could even get that (even if I'm not aware of anyone else doing that), but I really don't believe they blocked bidirectional routing between 2 ASN just because freenet thinks OVH is spammy. We hardly see a similar block when there is a war between 2 countries. Stefano On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 14:49, Yuval Levy via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > On 2024-03-08 07:48, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:04, Mark Alley <mark.al...@tekmarc.com> wrote: > >> Have you considered they may be blocking OVH ASNs on their firewall? > > > > Well, blocking the whole ASNs even to their NS sounds something very > > unexpected. > > Extreme, yes. Unexpected? I disagree. It is just another logical > escalation step towards the inevitable, but nothing new. Think of a > collision between the internet's echo chambers and the Great Firewall: > one side wants to control what the other side receives; and the other > side wants to control what it does not receive. > > Simple Venn diagram. When the intersection between the two circles > (agreement on what both sides want to send/receive) has less net value > than one of the two separate half-moons, the concerned side may as well > block the whole ASN: the cost of sacrificing the intersection is lower > than the benefit from allowing the communication less the > filtering/sanitation cost. > > Once one side decides that it gets less benefits than cost from the > communication, the other side has three strategic choices: giving more > value; causing less cost; or accepting the disconnect. They are now at > the accepting the disconnect, waiting to see who blinks first. If > no-one blinks, the disconnect becomes permanent. > > The problem is compounded by aggregation on the two sides: well behaved > senders will put pressure on their side; the rats may abandon ship and > raid the next ISP with weak policies. Affected recipients will put > pressure on their side to remove the filter. The question is where > those pressures will burst. My hope is that someone at OVH will wake up > and mop up the neighborhood that they control. > > Personally, I am still looking for the ideal firewall: block all ASNs > unless permitted. And even after that, the next battlefields are > already in sight: wireless network traversal. > > Yuv > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
