ISP Fantasies and Reality (was Re: Webone blocking port 25??)
Alex Satrapa
grail at goldweb.com.au
Fri Jul 26 11:02:59 EST 2002
On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 09:13 , Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> Rather - it lets any customer use the ISP's mail server to relay spam,
> and hence get that ISP and ALL their customers blacklisted, regardless
> of the fact that the individuals at the ISP and their other customers
> did not spam.
Because, of course, you have your relay set up to prevent people
bulk-mailing. I once worked for a company where it was decided not to
put limits on the number of recipients on an email message, and the
limit on attachment size was set to 10Mb.
One day, a particularly clownish member of staff send out an email
message. To "his close friends". All 2000 of them. With a couple of
Word documents attached. Each message was about 2Mb.
Something as simple as a recipient count limit would have prevented the
incident from occuring. Who needs SirCam when you have Clowns?
You can also impose mail throughput limits on some servers - limiting
the number of emails sent by one client per minute/hour/day.
> It also makes it extremely helpful to spammers.
It also makes it extremely easy for ISPs to stop spamming at the source.
> Rubbish. The Windows virus just looks up your email client's SMTP
> relay host and mails via it instead of trying to go directly.
At which point the ISPs SMTP relay has a chance to catch the virus-laden
email before it leaves the network.
> Rubbish again. heuristic scanning picks up "virus-like" code in
> anything executing, and can be used to flag potential viruses that the
> scanner doesn't yet have a definitive signature for. This has been
> standard practise for 8 years or more.
And yet SirCam managed to infect machines on a network that had
virus-scanners on email and workstations.
> ... similarly the blame doesn't rest on the ISP when a customer does
> something stupid.
There's a big difference between who the blame settles on and who cops
the flak.
> The ISP should only be concerned with protecting their own systems from
> everyone else.
"everyone else" starts with the first customer.
> The regulations are nothing more than a band-aid patch to the problem
> that people aren't considerate of others.
News flash! People as a whole haven't always been considerate of
others. Selfishness isn't indigenous to the 20th/21st Century.
> Why doesn't buying a computer require a license so dumb people can't
> get them?
Start a Non-Windows ISP where customers have to pass an "Internet
Licence" and get a sysadmin certification before getting a connection.
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Alex
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 225 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20020726/d4e227e7/attachment.bin
More information about the linux
mailing list