Port 25 blocking and a request for advice, on behalf of NZNOG.
Kia ora Wietse, [NZNOGgers - Please read this email and the next before you flame me. I won't see the flames until very late tomorrow :) I hope to not be flamed over this. Yes I deserved it earlier, I'll let you have that one.] You're about to be Cc-ed on a tale from me to the NZNOG mailing list. It involves the word Postfix a fair bit, Postfix rocks. Thank's for all the hard work you've put in to your MTA, it's a gem. I won't build an MTA with anything else, it suits me. So, yeah. Thanks. I hope you enjoy the soon to follow tale. Heck, maybe you won't, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things ;) Xtra is planning to block port outbound 25 outbound, no doubt a few other xSPs will follow suite at around the same time. Big business is what it is. The people that work at are good people. I personally like to support the underdog and I get on my soapbox occasionally. Xtra is New Zealand's largest ISP, a monolithic monopoly that's in bed with Microsoft ( www.xtramsn.co.nz ) and it's got it's hand playing very heavily in Parliment. What Xtra does impacts New Zealands Internet very heavily. This email is a request for your advice, for me personally and I suppose (as is in the subject heading) a request on behalf of NZNOG. I hope it is well recieved. I was wondering if you might perhaps take the time to chime in and let the NZNOG community know that blocking port 25 isn't a _solution_. One of the root motivators for implementing the block is the sheer number of their customers that have computers which run "rooted" Microsoft OSes. My angle is that blocking port 25 will not _solve_ the root cause of the problem. I believe that Xtra are in a good position to put some pressure on Microsoft with regards to rolling out a much better _solution_ , for example: Transparently scanning customer email for virus / blatant-spam related content. Then identifying and contacting those customers, to sort out their issues. Something that could be fairly easily implemented - it would just cost money, probably lots of it. Xtra and Microsoft are in a good position with regards to finance, as we all know. And this could be opted out of (easily), so the clueful can carry on living under the radar (the pleasant side of the radar). The devil is in the detail... I can imagine it'd be a logistical nightmare. However, I know the above is possible, I scripted something in Perl to do just this, when I worked for Wave Internet (a local ISP). The script did the above (example) automatically minus the automated contacting of customers, that was done manually but the script notified the support team of who was an offender. It also just scanned the Postfix's logs, not port 25 outbound for the entire op etc. I wasn't that savvy at the time. It would not just help the problem it would also curb the expense that is passed on to the customer. I've talked to a handful of customers while at Wave on the helpdesk that had footed thousands of dollars in bills due to trojans etc (Porn dialers, mass mailers etc). Those poor souls didn't get much sympathy from any party, just our condolences, it was the Telco that won in the end. I'm sure everyone on the NZNOG list would value your input on this issue, some may disagree with you. I know some have disagreed with me :) Heck, you may even support the blocking of port 25, though I suspect not[1]. Perhaps you won't, it doesn't matter. There's no harm in asking for the advice of someone that's well respected in the MTA building business. I've done a list subscribe request, on your behalf, to make it easier for you if you'd like to make a difference - either for or against my opinion which is: "Blocking port 25 is bad for the Internet (as a whole).". I know my initial post (to NZNOG) wasn't recieved too well. The thread started here: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2006-April/011325.html My rant here: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2006-April/011325.html I broke a few of the NZNOG rules and ruffled some feathers. Oh well, them's the breaks when the soapbox comes out :) A reminder. NZNOGgers - Please read the next email before you flame me. I won't see the flames until very late tomorrow :) Wietse, the next email from me will provide even more background. I can imagine that we'd all look forward to hearing your opinion on the matter. Thanks for your time so far. Perhaps we'll hear from you :) If you happened to have already deleted the subscribe request: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog [1] Sorry, I don't currently have time for _lots_ of list reading etc just a few key announcements and NZNOG, where I typically lurk. I don't *know* your view, I'd typed up to [1] before going "duh, Google...". So I carried on. -- Cheers, James Clark.
James Clark
I was wondering if you might perhaps take the time to chime in and let the NZNOG community know that blocking port 25 isn't a _solution_. One of the root motivators for implementing the block is the sheer number of their customers that have computers which run "rooted" Microsoft OSes.
It equally stops spam from compromised Linux boxes - yes, I have seen this happen.
My angle is that blocking port 25 will not _solve_ the root cause of the problem. I believe that Xtra are in a good position to put some pressure on Microsoft with regards to rolling out a much better _solution_ , for example:
Transparently scanning customer email for virus / blatant-spam related content. Then identifying and contacting those customers, to sort out their issues. Something that could be fairly easily implemented - it would just cost money, probably lots of it. Xtra and Microsoft are in a good position with regards to finance, as we all know. And this could be opted out of (easily), so the clueful can carry on living under the radar (the pleasant side of the radar). The devil is in the detail...
How are you going to scan the mail unless you force it through your SMTP server? If you don't block 25 outbound, the payloads, whether worms or spam will continue to be sent direct to MX. Personally, I'm all in favour of running snort on all ingress/egress traffic, but that probably doesn't make economic sense for most here. cheers, Jamie -- Jamie Riden / jamesr(a)europe.com / jamie.riden(a)computer.org "That's why I love VoIP. You don't get people phoning up to complain that the network is down." -- Peter Corlett
James Clark wrote:
I've done a list subscribe request, on your behalf, to make it easier for you if you'd like to make a difference - either for or against my opinion which is: "Blocking port 25 is bad for the Internet (as a whole).". I know my initial post (to NZNOG) wasn't recieved too well.
You do realise that this has questionable legality under the Crimes Amendment act that was passed recently ? and will almost certainly be illegal under the new Anti Spam laws that will probably be passed shortly. Please let this thread die, we all understand that you don't like port 25 blocking - no one really cares all that much tho. Here, have a cluepon. http://wibble.focb.co.nz/cluepon.jpg -- Steve.
On 20/04/2006, at 11:36 AM, Steve Phillips wrote:
James Clark wrote:
I've done a list subscribe request, on your behalf, to make it easier for you if you'd like to make a difference - either for or against my opinion which is: "Blocking port 25 is bad for the Internet (as a whole).". I know my initial post (to NZNOG) wasn't recieved too well.
You do realise that this has questionable legality under the Crimes Amendment act that was passed recently ? and will almost certainly be illegal under the new Anti Spam laws that will probably be passed shortly.
So the law is and will be wrong, once again. At least stupid laws are good motivators for better ideas. Thanks for bringing that up though.
Please let this thread die, we all understand that you don't like port 25 blocking - no one really cares all that much tho.
So, NZNOG doesn't care about the Internet in NZ and how this affects it?!? Can you please explain your logic here, that will help me (probably all of us) where you are coming from. I'd rather see the thread continue, I speak for others as well. Oh, and for the record Wieste has contacted me on this. So that I can clarify a few things for him. I'll be following that up soon (not tonight). I hope some of you find this interesting enough for me to post the results, I know some won't. -- Cheers James Clark
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, James Clark wrote:
I've done a list subscribe request, on your behalf, to make it easier for you if you'd like to make a difference - either for or against my opinion which is: "Blocking port 25 is bad for the Internet (as a whole).". I know my initial post (to NZNOG) wasn't recieved too well.
You do realise that this has questionable legality under the Crimes Amendment act that was passed recently ? and will almost certainly be illegal under the new Anti Spam laws that will probably be passed shortly.
So the law is and will be wrong, once again. At least stupid laws are good motivators for better ideas.
Thanks for bringing that up though.
You can debate the law all you like, but there must be some logic in it,
because you've also breached your ISP's Terms and Conditions:
Received: from [10.0.0.203] (60-234-144-89.bitstream.orcon.net.nz
[60.234.144.89])
by donkey.interspeed.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E837218402B
for
James Clark wrote:
I'd rather see the thread continue, I speak for others as well.
I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the list would rather that the off-topic part of the thread would die. No reply, either on list, or off, is required, or desired. Cheers Michael
participants (5)
-
James Clark
-
Jamie Riden
-
Mark Foster
-
Michael Jager
-
Steve Phillips