On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the >> case >> of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it. >> > > Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not just > small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making them much > more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly not have a > problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and caused an adaptive > filter to block it (eh? thousands of emails suddenly to a variety of servers? > block). Interestingly, adaptive filters are often used for probing scans (and > we didn't apply them to tcp/25, why?) > > > Jack
Sad, but true. I will not patronize an ISP that decides for me which packets I want and do not want, but, apparently there are people who will. Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be better than the current state, but, I vastly prefer "I pay, you route. If I want filtration, I'll tell you." Owen
