Comcast and SORBS

[lug at the-leveys.us (Don Levey)]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> From: "Don Levey" <lug at the-leveys.us>
>> I'm on the other side of this one.  ... at one point I was
>> getting hit with over 1000 attempts per day to deliver spam and
>> viruses from dynamic IPs on Comcast's network
>
> We're getting a bit off-topic from the Linux group if I reply to this
> in detail; my personal interest in posting here is to seek
> Linux-specific tools and services to continue running a private email
> server given ever-increasing restrictions.
>
I continue to run my own server - but send my outgoing mail from my server
to RCN's.  I can still maintain all my own user accounts, and protect those
users with aggressive spam and virus filtering.

> But I do feel compelled to respond to the above point:  even if every
> large ISP based in America and the major countries that share American
> intellectual-property corporate values were to implement blocks on
> SMTP port 25, the impact on spam would be *negligible*.  I get about
> 10,000 spams per month.  Only a very small percentage is from servers
> based here in America, and I'd probably have to search long and hard
> for any sent out using a cable modem.
>
I al get between 10 and 20,000 spam *attempts* per month. Each month varies;
during the heights of virus propagation about 60% was from either Comcast or
OptOnline.  With these viruses, the line between virus and spam is blurred
somewhat, as they install a backdoor smtp server onto Windows machines and
then those machines are used to relay spam.  Still, about 75% of all my spam
comes from US-based cable and DSL modems in dynamic blocks, from ISPs which
are unwilling to crack down on network abuse by their customers.

> I just flat-out disagree with your assertion that Comcast should block
> outbound port 25 in the interest of spam reduction.
>
Fair enough; my experience has been different.  Certainly if you've got a
business relying on that service, you should have a business account with
the ISP, which normally includes a fixed IP.

>> I have no illusion about "privacy" rights when I'm using
>> someone else's private property for my transmission, even under
>> contract. And they'd be fools to permit unmonitored communication
>> over their network.
>
> I used to run major operations at two different ISPs.  If I ever said
> anything like the above in a forum visible to customers, there would
> have been serious consequences.
>
Probably; a major attack of honesty is often not good for (traditional)
businesses.  But allow me to rephrase slightly:
"And they'd be fools to permit unmonitored communication under all
circumstances over their network."

> As for the public-policy implications of the above, suffice it to say
> that I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and that I believe the
> public does have an ownership interest in the utility rights-of-way
> and/or broadcast spectrum that delivers Internet service to/from our
> homes.  ISPs do not provide me with their service using "private
> property".
>
The public *may* have an ownership right to utility rights-of-way; that's
not what we're talking about.  There is no "broadcast" - unless you're
talking about sattelite communication.  The internet is a collection of (in
the US) private networks, along with some public ones, that gather together
for a common purpose.  Unless you get service from a government-owned
utility, your ISP certainly does use its private property to transmit your
traffic.  You may wish to read your contract; I suggest you don't try to
communicate this "non-private" idea to them if you expect to be taken
seriously.

 -Don