DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > General Publishing Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-15-2005, 02:14 PM   #41
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

<Wuttever ... at least we're clear on one thing: that your ISP and mind/KT's mean something different re blocking the port.> Yup.

And they both claim to speak Yng Glitch. Almost makes me yearn for The Olde Days when there were only a dozen national ISPs and they all charged a bloody fortune but they actually had tech support staffs with career techs, instead of teletemps.

So all we know is that SOMEONE is either, ah, lying. Or not being accurate about what they are doing. "Could I supersize that?" If they answer "yes" run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 04:00 PM   #42
Shane Stanley
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Kind of like taking away all the beds, mattresses, and upholsteredf sofas in order to make sure the cigarette smokers can't accidentally fall asleep and start a fire at home.
With respect, that's such a poor analogy as to be misleading. But if you were dealing with a smoker who knew as much about starting fires as most computer users know about how SMTP works, then you'd probably think it a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Privacy issues? No. Since every ISP "examines" the routing information in every packet that gets sent, they are already "reading" all the email anyway. If they were to verify the sender information against their subscribers, or perform some other automatic routing function, they would be doing nothing more intrusive than what they are already doing.
Nonsense. You were talking about checking for authentication -- that's going to involve reading -- and analyzing -- the contents of packets, not just the headers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
And eventually, one hopes they WILL be doing exactly that. Verify all traffic at the packet level, to end spam. What do I care if a computer examines and authenticates all my packets? That's what they are supposed to do anyway. If I want privacy, I'll encrypt--and ensure it.
What do you mean by "verify"? If I try to send an email via an SMTP server at another ISP, what exactly is my ISP going to verify?

Shane
Shane Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 04:29 PM   #43
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

<<With respect, that's such a poor analogy as to be misleading. But if you were dealing with a smoker who knew as much about starting fires as most computer users know about how SMTP works, then you'd probably think it a good idea.>>
Tch. Did I hit a sore spot? Are you a smoker?
I've never met a smoker, except those with military training, who knew how to properly police their butts. Most throw them in the street, where passing dogs can eat them and get nicotine poisoning. None think that they will set their own homes on fire--even though many do every year. And the ones who blithely light up in gas stations every year absolutely astound me. Here in the US, several of those remove themselves from the gene pool every year. (Hello, it's gasoline, it is SUPPOSED to explode.)


<<Nonsense. You were talking about checking for authentication -- that's going to involve reading -- and analyzing -- the contents of packets, not just the headers.>> No, authentication is a process in itself. Don't confuse the mention of authentication (server or user authentication) with the fact that every packet MUST be read in order to be routed. You can say well, its only the header that is being read, not the whole packet. But reading the header still IS reading the packet, the only question is how much of it are you going to process once you start reading it. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with CARNIVORE (whatever they renamed it) but packet sdo get read, completely, routinely, and anyone in the route can do that. The point is, NO TRAFFIC on the civil internet is inherently secure, and all of it IS able to be read. If you pass my traffic, you can read it. So why not read it, if that enhances the service you can provide?

<<What do you mean by "verify"? If I try to send an email via an SMTP server at another ISP, what exactly is my ISP going to verify?>>
You're misreading me again. When I say verify, I mean that every message can be authenticated (verified) against a user's crypto key. If you're running a zombie, the zombie traffic can be knocked out. If someone is impersonating a sending system, that can be knocked out. Messages that claim to be FROM:THIS.ISP.COM can easily be verified against a Kerberos key or other crypto key, and stripped out when it doesn't match. Ditto for messages claiming to be from a user, on the way to that user's own originating ISP.
One plan for that calls for casual users to manually authenticate each email they send out, as a manual process. Others call for using IPSEC, or a hardware crypto key or crypto chip on each motherboard. There are all sorts of proposals for these schemes.
But when you say "If I try to send an email via an SMTP server at another ISP, what exactly is my ISP going to verify?" you're misreading me. I'm not suggesting you send mail "via" a third party server. I'm saying that if you are logged onto ISP#1, and you want to send mail using ISP#2's server, ISP#1 is going to do nothing--it is going to pass that mail on. But ISP#2 is going to REJECT IT unless you log onto ISP#2 using your correct password and UID for that ISP. When I use Outlook, logged onto ISP#1 for my internet connection, Outlook doesn't "pass" mail to ISP#2. Outlook actually logs into ISP#2's mail server, and my mail ORIGINATES from the second ISP. The first ISP has no role in originating the mail, it doesn't appear in the mail header/routing information at all. That's why ISP#1 doesn't have to block port25 traffic--they aren't carrying it. The email client is not using relay, it is directly logging into the other ISP's SMTP servers.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 09:47 AM   #44
Steve Rindsberg
Staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
<Wuttever ... at least we're clear on one thing: that your ISP and mind/KT's mean something different re blocking the port.> Yup.

And they both claim to speak Yng Glitch. Almost makes me yearn for The Olde Days when there were only a dozen national ISPs and they all charged a bloody fortune but they actually had tech support staffs with career techs, instead of teletemps.

So all we know is that SOMEONE is either, ah, lying. Or not being accurate about what they are doing. "Could I supersize that?" If they answer "yes" run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
That's one reason I've stuck with my ISP (the real one, not the one that's just the onramp to the net). They've always been a bit more expensive, but their tech folks know what they're doing and *never* try to BS their way out of things. And as near 100% uptime in the last ten years as makes no difference. Money well spent, IMO.

Oh, and they run a mail server on a nonstandard port just for folk like KT 'n Me. <g>

   
__________________
Steve Rindsberg
====================
www.pptfaq.com
www.pptools.com
and stuff
Steve Rindsberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2005, 04:49 PM   #45
curveto
Member
 
curveto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: some room with white padded walls ... now surrounded by Saguaro Cacti
Posts: 352
Default

So my question to the assembled multitude is: Is there any reason not to try to get the filter removed? Are there likely to be hidden ramifications?

The spammers (and SMTP's design) cast your run. They may unblock your MAC (address not machine) but I wouldn't be pertubed if they refuse.

JR
curveto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2005, 05:23 PM   #46
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curveto
The spammers (and SMTP's design) cast your run. They may unblock your MAC (address not machine) but I wouldn't be pertubed if they refuse.
You kids talk funny! <g>

Interpreting here: So you don’t think it is any big deal? Okay. I can live with that. (Am, in fact.)

But yesterday I had another bounced e-mail, with that same weird message suggesting that my IP was on the forbidden list. This time, I was using my DSL ISP’s SMTP.

All I want is a nice peaceful life in which my messages get to the people I send them to. No muss, no fuss, no bother. Is this too much to ask?

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2005, 07:01 PM   #47
curveto
Member
 
curveto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: some room with white padded walls ... now surrounded by Saguaro Cacti
Posts: 352
Default

pertubed

Wow! The force is strong tonight.

All I want is a nice peaceful life in which my messages get to the people I send them to. No muss, no fuss, no bother. Is this too much to ask?

Yes.

Here's a related tip...

In the year 2030 (assuming you're toes still wiggle) and a synthetic being raises it's hands to its (left or) right shoulder and arranges them in a fashion that looks like it may be holding a (bazooka or) rocket launcher soon ... don't wait for something to start materializing (from thin air) before...

RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNING!

<hehehe/>

Kid...

0 0 moveto
0 1 lineto
1 1 lineto
1 0 lineto
closepath

... ... scale

All (good) things are relative,
JR
curveto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005, 08:38 AM   #48
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

KT-
<Is there any reason not to try to get the filter removed? Are there likely to be hidden ramifications?> If you mean, getting Port25 unblocked for your account? No, I'd say there are no problems with it. Just don't let a zombie take over your computer, and your ISP won't care.

The reject mesage you got, mentioning that your ISP was on a block list? That's not surprising, apparently SBC is #4 on at least one list of the top ISP's "generating" spam.

There are more advanced and civilied ways of dealing with the problem. That requires management who give a damn about long-term issues, such as Comcast apparently has. Their policy is rather different. You get caught running a zombie, and they terminate your account--forever. They are willing to give up mindless customers, in order to address the spam problem. If the customers aren't willing to take some basic security steps, screw 'em, take away their "drivers license" for the information highway.

Works for me.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005, 11:53 AM   #49
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktinkel
yesterday I had another bounced e-mail, with that same weird message suggesting that my IP was on the forbidden list. This time, I was using my DSL ISP’s SMTP.
It happens to me occasionally, too. I've narrowed it down to one of BigPond's mail servers, which must have been put on a black list at GoDaddy. I know this because I created the receiving e-mail address at GoDaddy for a volunteer organisation I work for. If I resend the message, it goes straight through. What made me look it up was that I send a lot of e-mails to that particular address, often several within minutes, and only about one in 10 gets bounced.

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2005, 04:39 PM   #50
Shane Stanley
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by annc
It happens to me occasionally, too. I've narrowed it down to one of BigPond's mail servers
We have to free you from the tyranny of BigPond one day...

Shane
Shane Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Courier E-Mail George The Corner Pub 1 01-29-2007 12:35 AM
osx mail help helene silverman General Publishing Topics 6 08-18-2005 12:46 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.