ISPs blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space

[Kevin Stevens]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:

> >Bullshit.  My ISP's lack of ability to deliver mail reliably is what made
> >me start my own mail service in the first place.  Nor do I particularly
> >want to hand them my mail so they can riffle through it at their leisure
> >rather than having to scan for it on the wire in realtime.
> >
> If youre ISP is unable to deliver mail reliably then you should switch
> to another ISP immediatly, imho.

The problem is that your "MHO" is being set up as a mandatory decree by
blocking legitimate mail.

> There are way to many ISP's out there that doesnt have a clue what they
> are doing, and the only reason they still exist is that people keep
> using them.
> Im not saying you should go with one of the big ones, I hate AOL and MSN
> just as much as any other guy, but there are plenty of ISP's out there
> that Im sure know what they are doing and really care about customer
> service.

My ISP (pacbell/SBC) has sterling circuit uptime and bandwidth.  Their
services side totally sucks.  Why should I have to use their services to
get Internet access?  And your statement that there are "plenty of ISP's
out there" is simply wrong.  There are typically three or four (large) DSL
providers - if they can wrest service order fulfillment from the RBOC, and
two or three cable offerings in the major markets, fewer in the smaller
ones.

> And if you dont want people to read your mail, you should use PGP or
> something similar, even if you run your own mailserver.

That's totally correct and totally unresponsive to my statement.

> >Fine.  Then replace it, or require authentication at receiving points, or
> >some other solution that directly addresses the problem.  Wholesale
> >blocking of  types of transport is a crappy solution.  It's unfair, liable
> >to huge amounts of false positives, and leads directly to the kind of
> >centralized, locked down Internet that will spell its demise.
> >
> Thats easier said then done. You do realize what a monumental task it
> would be to replace SMTP, dont you?

Yes.  Almost as monumental as authenticating routing updates, which the
tier 1 providers better get off their asses and start performing, too.

> But hey, if you have a plug n' play solution that will just drop in and
> replace SMTP without breaking anything, Im all for it!

Another bogus argument.  I pointed out that you are breaking major parts
of Internet connectivity, and what the correct engineering approach would
be.  That doesn't commit me to having to come up with a drop-in
implementation before you stop breaking things.

> I do not agree on your opinion that taking some needed actions will lock
> down the internet and kill it. I think its completely the other way
> around. If we dont do something about spam now, noone will want to be on
> the internet in a few years time. Email will be impossible to use due to
> the signal to noise ratio, www will be cluttered with popups, banners
> and ad's for porn site, and every single file will contian a trojan or worm.

Conversely, if people can't count on legitimate email to get where it's
going, they will stop using it.  And that will happen MUCH quicker than
stopping using it because of spam.

> I cant believe I sound like some domesday prophet, Im actually known
> among those who know me as a fanatic advocate of a free internet, but as
> I see it the internet is slowly selfdestructing. Its no longer a
> creation of research and educational needs, its being used for pure
> profit and the dream of making fast and easy money. And I dont like that.

And facilitating the centralization of control into a few corporate
conglomerates impedes that how?

KeS