On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
Has
Mark Komarinski wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
Has anybody else seen this?
Damn, looks like mine is blocked too.
Travis Roy wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running
a server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port
25 of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX
records.
Has anybody else seen this?
I've heard rumors of
Can anybody suggest a workaround.
Run the mail server on a different port redirect. *sigh*
There are some services that will do this. i'm looking them up right
now.
http://www.dyndns.org/services/mailhop/relay.html is one
___
gnhlug-discuss
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:45:05AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
My parents use outlook and connect to my server. I allow the connection.
They don't run a server.
I just had another friend try to connect and he got thru also. Might be
a local thing. I had a friend that got his port 80 blocked
They might be blocked by an outgoing filter too. I just found that my
work does that. zonedit.com has an smtp test that gets to my server
Yah, but it would have to be comcast's filter. Since my parents don't
have any filter.
You could try tricks with netcat or iptables to redirect on your
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 6:47am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25 of
my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
Has anybody else seen this?
More and more ISPs are blocking port 25 outbound on consumer
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:25am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
=server..
=
=Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
=of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX records.
=
=Has
Steven W. Orr wrote:
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
=server..
=
=Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
=of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:25am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
Why? They are blocking access to an
: GNHLUG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Steve Subject: Re: Comcast blocking port 25? (not what you think)
Steve
Steve On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
Steve
Steve =This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
Steve
On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 10:52 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=Steven W. Orr wrote:
=
=I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
=thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
=but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
Why?
Mail abuse. A great deal of spam and other
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
competition and limiting
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 11:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The solution is to add yet more and more entries into my mailertable file
in sendmail.
Why don't you just relay everything through your ISP?
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the
Bruce Dawson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
competition
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 10:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, that's what I'm going to have to do.. BLAH.. stupid comcast.
Get used to it. More and more ISPs are adding this. And I cannot say I
entirely disagree with the policy.
Why?
Mail abuse. A great deal
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:35, Steven W. Orr wrote:
And I'm guaranteed that my IP address won't change. Ever.
Until, of course, it changes... I wouldn't give their guarantee too
much faith...
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
Okay.. for the -LAST TIME- my parents are -NOT- I repeat are -NOT-
running any kind of sever at all, NONE! They are trying to connect to MY
server that is NOT on the comcast network to send mail.
(maybe it's already bee covered?)
Why don't they
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
Bruce Dawson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:52, Travis Roy wrote:
I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
but to block access to an
Brian wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Travis Roy wrote:
Okay.. for the -LAST TIME- my parents are -NOT- I repeat are -NOT-
running any kind of sever at all, NONE! They are trying to connect to MY
server that is NOT on the comcast network to send mail.
(maybe it's already bee covered?)
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 06:47:42AM -0400, Travis Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent you from running a
server..
Recently my parents (that use Comcast) can no longer connect to port 25
of my server.. one that is legit, has correct reverse and MX
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:56AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
Brian wrote:
Why don't they just use Comcasts provided SMTP server? What is the real
benefit of having them send through your server?
It's always been setup that way.. And I think the comcast server
requires some kind of auth,
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Travis Roy wrote:
I just find it stupid that they would do something like this. It's one
thing to block port 80 since running a webserver is against the AUP/TOS,
but to block access to an outside mail server smells of crushing the
competition and limiting choice.
I
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mark Komarinski wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:56AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
Brian wrote:
Why don't they just use Comcasts provided SMTP server? What is the
real benefit of having them send through your server?
It's always been setup that way.. And I think
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:44, Bob Bell wrote:
However, recently I was reading about SPF and discovered MSA. Although
MSA may optionally do more sophisticated things, in a limited format you
can run a normal SMTP server implementing authentication on the MSA
port (TCP port 587), and non-MSA
PROTECTED]
Steve Cc: GNHLUG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Steve Subject: Re: Comcast blocking port 25? (not what you think)
Steve
Steve On Monday, May 10th 2004 at 06:47 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
Steve
Steve =This isn't about Comcast blocking port 25 to prevent
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 11:23am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mail abuse. A great deal of spam and other mail abuse comes from
computers on consumer feeds that are incorrectly configured as a mail
relay (don't ask me how, but it happens more often then you would think),
or have been compromised
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Paul Iadonisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was going to bring up MSA, too. It should be noted, however, that
MSA doesn't *require* authentication. Check out RFC 2476 for details.
The RFC does lists authentication as an optional feature, however.
I
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 2:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm basically on the side of individual freedoms and don't like that port
25 egress filtering is being implemented by broadband vendors.
Geeks (I include myself in this category) like to romanticize this idea of
the big, happy Internet,
On Mon, 10 May 2004, at 6:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do predict that spammers will adapt to this new authenticated email
world rather quickly. Namely, they will modify their spam-cannon-laden
viruses ...
That seems likely, but how much email is send from virus-attacked
computers?
33 matches
Mail list logo
