From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 7 09:54:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A10337B401 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from munk.nu (213-152-51-194.dsl.eclipse.net.uk [213.152.51.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7060643F75 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:54:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from munk@munk.nu) Received: from munk by munk.nu with local (Exim 4.20) id 19ko2O-0003Ce-ES for questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:54:52 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:54:52 +0100 From: Jez Hancock To: questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030807165452.GC11607@users.munk.nu> Mail-Followup-To: questions@freebsd.org References: <25533.63.104.35.130.1060186797.squirrel@email.polands.org> <20030807151428.GB7253@users.munk.nu> <20030807162353.GC1166@polands.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030807162353.GC1166@polands.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: User Munk Subject: Re: ISPs blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:54:54 -0000 On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:14:28PM +0100, Jez Hancock wrote: > > Actually I think there was one reply that mentioned a lot of > > netblocks that were being included. If it's the case that those > > netblocks are admin'd by companies that do not (pro)actively attempt > > to block spam then I agree they should be blocked. Presumably the > > larger companies you mention have researched the amount of spam > > trapped at their mail gateways over time and are sick at the fact > > the numbers haven't dropped over time despite complaints to the > > spammer's admin contacts. > > > To quote Time Warner: > > "As part of this continuing effort, Road Runner, along with a > significant number of other providers, has implemented incoming port > 25 blocks of dynamically assigned IP address space, including dialup, > DSL, and Cable modem IP addresses. The reason for this is because of > the widespread number of high speed subscribers who we have found are > infected with trojans such as Jeem, or have open proxy or SMTP > applications which allow third parties to hijack them." > > > > > > Is anyone else uneasy with this trend? Maybe it's just me and I > > > don't like being discriminated against because I don't have the > > > money to own static IP addresses. One would think groups of > > > responsible and technically competent users would be organizing > > > against this trend and attempting to make their voice heard. > > I don't think I am uneasy about this - but then again I'm not on a > > blacklisted netblock!. Having said this though, if I found my > > bandwidth provider was on a blacklist and had no intention of > > attempting to get off it I'd probably move straight away anyway. -- > > > Not everyone has multiple broadband providers to choose from. Fair enough and I can understand your annoyance in that case. What do your providers have to say about all this? As a customer I would be very angry about it and can't imagine I'd be alone since the blocks mentioned are quite vast. -- Jez http://www.munk.nu/