On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 15:16 -0800, Ed Jaeger wrote: > To be honest, upon reflection I don't have much trouble with SBC's actions. > Most folks on this list are probably used to being family/coworker tech > support, > and this situation came to light due to a late night call from my boss about > not > being able to send mail via his DSL connection. > > Granted, it took some poking around to find out what was up, but once I > discovered that they had been putting port 25 blocks in place and there was a > way to undo it I just did that. > > If SBC had announced this in advance I'm sure a lot of people would have > opted > out. Right now it takes someone who understands the problem and the solution > to > request the opt out. Meanwhile, zombie billyware spam spewers are thwarted - > last I read, port 25 blocks are effective at dealing with these symptoms.
Indeed, blocking port 25 does help with the SPAM problem. However, having an Internet connection with blocked ports is like buying a chainsaw without blades: you aren't getting all you are supposed to for your own safety and the safety of others. The Internet isn't just WWW, and as I said during a similar RLUG discussion a year or so back, port blocking is a rip-off -- Another solution is needed. The opt out is nice, but unless everyone is using web mail now a-days, that screws up a lot of Outlookers and Eudorians until they figure out their ISP is screwing them. What are these guys thinking? Mark -- Mark C. Ballew Reno, Nevada [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://markballew.com PGP: 0xB2A33008 AIM: pdx110
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
