Re: Current status?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply skrev:
In article <gad5rp$25e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johnny Billquist
<bqt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I just totally hate ISPs that block port 25. The less I have to deal with an ISP, the better my life works. They are *clowns* and I for one am not interested in letting them handling my mail traffic if I can avoid it.

I agree that some ISPs, with incompetent support folks, are a pain.

"Some"?

From time to time, I've considered changing ISPs, but the main reason I don't is that something won't work (some port blocked etc) after the change and that I can't even find out beforehand if there will be a problem.

I have one simple question to any ISP that I might consider. "Are you blocking *any* ports?". If they do, then I'm not interested.

Spam is definitely a scurge, but letting the ISPs get monopoly on mail is not the solution.

And as others have pointed out, the fact that a whole bunch of ISPs now block port 25 haven't reduced spam one bit.

Yes it has.

Oh really. Is that some kind of projection that "otherwise spam would have increased 500%, now it has only increased 400%"?

Don't kill the messenger when the message is junk. Find the originator instead. That's where your problem is, and that is where you need to apply the fix. Otherwise the spammer will just continue, finding new ways of spreading their junk.

The way the spammers work these days is not by sending many messages from one machine (in that case, just block the rapid-fire senders of email), but rather by writing viruses which infect PCs and send a few messages from millions of PCs. It is often difficuult, if not impossible, to find the spammer, and even if one does, he might be beyond legal jurisdiction.

Certainly. And that is where we need to do something.

I agree that, if caught, spammers should be severely punished. However, realistically, one can't catch most of them.

Correct. And that is where we need the change.

Jail them. Confiscate their money and their business. That would stop spam. Not much else will.

Yes, good idea, but in most cases it doesn't work in practice.

Not today, no. And that is why spamming continues and increases.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@xxxxxxxxxx || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Current status?
    ... I agree that some ISPs, with incompetent support folks, are a pain. ... Otherwise the spammer will just continue, ... finding new ways of spreading their junk. ... but rather by writing viruses which infect PCs and send a few ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: How much traffic does your ISP filter by TCP port no.?
    ... ISPs for doing precisely that. ... indeed many "ISP"s never did/will offer usenet news. ... This is the result of letting the sundry and all onto The Internet. ... *think* that the Internet is nothing more than port 80 web browsing. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Attempted Intrusions
    ... Assuming these are just port scans that are blocked at your firewall, ... Ask a legal expert or search www.google.com ... The ISPs cannot respond to you. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: Holy Crap! (as Frank Barone would say), the SPAM!
    ... Actually, I would prefer if ISPs blocked port 25 for their customers - if they also have a good enough technical support system that they can distinguish between competent and knowledgeable users, ... If a user explicitly requests port 25 to unblocked, chances are that the user knows what he/she is doing. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: What is the use of SMTP server
    ... I am with one of the biggest ISPs of US. ... back I was with another big ISP, they also didnt block port 25. ... I dont understand why this step is neccessary to block spam. ... its own domain at any of its server. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)