Hello,
: So if a customer proofs that he is able from a technical : Point of view to operate an mail server in a secure manner : and assures not to abuse email for spam then it's not : acceptable that an ISP block anything to him.
This is what I was saying to the guys here at my work. We just need a small proof that the customer isn't a spammer and we open it up. However, most of our customers are less-technical savy home folks. Did you have to prove to your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did they have you do that?
Thanks, scott
--- Peter.Bickel@idv.ch wrote:
From: Peter Bickel Peter.Bickel@idv.ch To: swinog@swinog.ch, surfer@mauigateway.com Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:03:28 +0200
Scott Weeks schrieb:
: You'd be amazed how many companies operate their own : mail servers, even behind dynamic addresses
I'm speaking with guys in my company on an issue and part of the discussion has to do with me saying no one runs a mail server from behind a dynamic IP addresses. Other than just your experiences, does anyone have pointers to data on folks that do this?
scott
Hi Scott
we do exactly this for IDV & Network Consulting. We operate our own Mailserver (Solaris with sendmail and iamp) in our internal Network which is connected to Cablecom (DHCP ;-)) In addition we have some Maschines in a hosting environment which have of corse fixed IP addresses which we use to relay to the outside. All hosts use Solaris and sendmail and are protected with IPFilter with very restrictive Rules. Incomming email is going through the external hosts and an IPIP Tunnel directly to the internal mail server.
We really don't want to be dependend on an ISPs email SETUP. DNS is the same which helped me in the past a lot where several customers weren't able to use the net everything worked for us. So if a customer proofs that he is able from a technical Point of view to operate an mail server in a secure manner and assures not to abuse email for spam then it's not acceptable that an ISP block anything to him.
--- swinog-list@dudes.ch wrote:
From: Markus Wild swinog-list@dudes.ch To: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports? Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:26:39 +0200
Jonathan,
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email Spam which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that blocking port 25 outbound will help then they should do it.
If you are a user, why can't you use the ISPs relay server? If you are a provider you ought to have your own mail server on a fixed IP address.
You'd be amazed how many companies operate their own mail servers, even behind dynamic addresses (in which case they usually use some mailbox polling mechanism to feed their server from mail from the outside), but send outgoing mail directly with SMTP.
Of course, one day we need a better protocol than SMTP (*Simple* Mail Transfer Protocol) which was never meant as a global email solution. But until then we have to do something to stop people abusing it.
But by killing the payload, not the messenger, please...
Cheers, Markus _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Hi
This is what I was saying to the guys here at my work. We just need a small proof that the customer isn't a spammer and we open it up. However, most of our customers are less-technical savy home folks. Did you have to prove to your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did they have you do that?
There is a "passive OS fingerprinting" module for iptables (see http://ippersonality.sourceforge.net/). How about treating connections differently depending on the OS they're coming from? if(windows) then block else allow? :) Or is the OS fingerprint lost through NAT? I don't know.
Daniel
Scott Weeks schrieb:
Hello,
: So if a customer proofs that he is able from a technical : Point of view to operate an mail server in a secure manner : and assures not to abuse email for spam then it's not : acceptable that an ISP block anything to him.
This is what I was saying to the guys here at my work. We just need a small proof that the customer isn't a spammer and we open it up. However, most of our customers are less-technical savy home folks. Did you have to prove to your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did they have you do that?
I was a test user as cablecom startet with highspeed internet. At the beginning of cablecoms start as ISP before they bought Swissonline I was in regular technical contact with both Swissonline and also Cablecom as a Sun Microsystems Systems Engineer, so they already had the impression that I was knowing something about TCP/IP sendmail and so on.
In other words they really had never tried to ask, because normaly I told them how to fix things ;-)
Other ISPs like TIC former Via Networks aka KPNquest /EUnet, Init 7, Netstream, Cybernet etc I had technical contact with I woul say they would not ask if I am able to setup things the right way.
BTW: I'm a real SPAM hater and therefore I would be interested in a legal session in our next SWINOG meeting to see if I can earn money from Socken SPAM and Co. if I get SPAM from them now that the LAW changed in Switzerland. ;-)
Thanks, scott
--- Peter.Bickel@idv.ch wrote:
From: Peter Bickel Peter.Bickel@idv.ch To: swinog@swinog.ch, surfer@mauigateway.com Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:03:28 +0200
Scott Weeks schrieb:
: You'd be amazed how many companies operate their own : mail servers, even behind dynamic addresses
I'm speaking with guys in my company on an issue and part of the discussion has to do with me saying no one runs a mail server from behind a dynamic IP addresses. Other than just your experiences, does anyone have pointers to data on folks that do this?
scott
Hi Scott
we do exactly this for IDV & Network Consulting. We operate our own Mailserver (Solaris with sendmail and iamp) in our internal Network which is connected to Cablecom (DHCP ;-)) In addition we have some Maschines in a hosting environment which have of corse fixed IP addresses which we use to relay to the outside. All hosts use Solaris and sendmail and are protected with IPFilter with very restrictive Rules. Incomming email is going through the external hosts and an IPIP Tunnel directly to the internal mail server.
We really don't want to be dependend on an ISPs email SETUP. DNS is the same which helped me in the past a lot where several customers weren't able to use the net everything worked for us. So if a customer proofs that he is able from a technical Point of view to operate an mail server in a secure manner and assures not to abuse email for spam then it's not acceptable that an ISP block anything to him.
--- swinog-list@dudes.ch wrote:
From: Markus Wild swinog-list@dudes.ch To: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports? Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:26:39 +0200
Jonathan,
Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email Spam which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that blocking port 25 outbound will help then they should do it.
If you are a user, why can't you use the ISPs relay server? If you are a provider you ought to have your own mail server on a fixed IP address.
You'd be amazed how many companies operate their own mail servers, even behind dynamic addresses (in which case they usually use some mailbox polling mechanism to feed their server from mail from the outside), but send outgoing mail directly with SMTP.
Of course, one day we need a better protocol than SMTP (*Simple* Mail Transfer Protocol) which was never meant as a global email solution. But until then we have to do something to stop people abusing it.
But by killing the payload, not the messenger, please...
Cheers, Markus _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
-
Daniel Lorch -
Peter Bickel -
Scott Weeks