From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
On May 30, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
So what ISP was blocked?
What are you, the ISP police? Not that it's any of your business, it
was X0 DSL
Your repeated, unprovoked public complaints about the blocking that
affected you made XO's identity not the business of everyone who cares
about such issues. Then there were your comments about "near monopolies."
and I paid just under $100/month and hosted my server at
home; it was blacklisted as part of a larger block of IP addresses
beyond my control. When I moved physically, I took the opportunity to
move my server to a hosted service for guppylake.com, and NOW am on a
normal cable modem at home. I've been associated with the domain
guppylake.com for almost twenty years, however, and I rather like to
continue sending mail from that address even though I now obtain my
bitstream from Comcast.
But I imagine that X0 is also on your list of ISP's-that-are-evil, so
it was my fault for using them in the first place.
That reference that any list of mine of evil ISPs is disingenuous.
Besides, I bet you know as well as I do that RoadRunner probably
blocked that larger block of addresses because of lots of spam.
For a while XO was having difficulty acting against its spamming
customers. I've not noticed such complaints for a while.
It does sounds as if you have made a habit of hiring ISPs without
exercising due diligence. If that is true, you might blame your
parents but not me. I don't blame you for the fact that until
recently I've always paid much more than $100/month to host my
vanity domain, but then it has not been blacklisted. I have moved
it more than once when I lost confidence in an ISP.
Why do I suspect you are being disingenuous
and that it was a $30/month account?
I don't know, perhaps because you have a suspicious nature and are
quick to assume the worst about people?
Instead of using ad hominem, you might recall your own words such as
] ... near-monopolistic market positions. The latter exception
] is important, however; I'd certainly be upset if my cable provider
] did it, because I don't have any good alternatives
Then there is your coyness about XO's identity. Why didn't you come
out and name it at the start?
I am not really the sort of
person who tells lies on an IETF list just to make a point.
Where have I lied? For your part, you have repeatedly intentionally
misrepresented my words and generally been disingenuous. For example,
your words above imply that I had no business asking which ISP was
involved in the blocking you have repeatedly complained about. You
made the identity of the ISP a relevant point by your demands that I
stop "random speculating" as well as by your repeated complaints about
RoadRunner's blocking.
For my part, I am sufficiently paranoid to fear that ISP's might
advocate port 25 blocking because they hope it will lock people into
email addresses that are less portable (e.g. nsb(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net).
But
when they give other reasons, no matter how irrational I may think they
sound, I try at least to give their sincerity the benefit of the doubt.
That is also disingenuous. While I share concerns about locking
people into addresses, you know that blocking port 25 is unrelated
if people use some flavors of what you called "a more spam-resistant
infrastructure for SMTP message submission," such as SMTP-SUBMIT,
or simple "web mail."
Why don't you give RoadRunner's sincerity the benefit of the doubt
about the blocking of your XO address? Did you check any of the well
know resources such as news.admin.net-abuse.sightings for evidence of
spam from your neighbors or did you just start complaining about evil
"near-monopolies"?
Do you have any substantive responses to my counters against your
claims that port 25 blocking is useless and harmful? I claim
- port 25 blocking by $30/month providers would block little more
than the spam that might someday be blocked by Caller-ID, SPF, etc.
- the legitimate mail blocked or false positives caused by port 25
blocking is similar or less than that for Caller-ID, SPF, etc.
- port 25 blocking can be implemented today piecemeal by individual
providers on the sending side in routers and on the receiving side
using blacklists, while Caller-ID, SPF, etc. must wait at least 5
or 10 years until most of the Internet implements them.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf