Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Orcon's email servers in a spam blocklist

Reply
Thread Tools

Orcon's email servers in a spam blocklist

 
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
peterwn wrote:

>
> Shane wrote:
>> peterwn wrote:
>>
>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>

> They are two completely different situations.


They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a mix
of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses

> In the case of spambots,
> the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
> caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
> consent of the account owner.


And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the innocent
users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host

> The ISP can then reconnect them once the
> account holder has cleaned things up, installed the latest updates,
> installed anti-virus etc - golly,


On the say-so of the spambot, who may.. or may not, clean up their act

> after doing all this it would be
> easier to install Linux and Open Office and be done with it.
>


Unfortunately Linux boxes get rooted to

> It seems with p2p, the ISP's should come clean. They should not offer
> an 'eat all you like' service then clobber those whom they claim are
> abusing it. They should set limits and make them known.


p2p isnt the only traffic that likes all you can eat connections... just
the one in the spotlight

--
Zapp Brannigan: We're all from different cultures here. Some of you are
white, and some of you are black. You're brown. [to Bender] And you're
silver. But I don't care if your skin's red, or tan, or Chinese. You're all
going to have to learn to die together.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
El Chippy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006

"Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
news:eile33$8kc$(E-Mail Removed)...

> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>


Do you not see the major difference between the two?

SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
dont want.

P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the software.
Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

I am willing to pay for peer to peer traffic, its something i want.
Spam is something i dont want to pay for, (directly or indirectly)

If you are opposed to P2P traffic then dont generate any by not running P2P
software, meanwhile i will download the odd topgear episode, maybe a bit of
Lost or whatever else we are a season or two behind on here in NZ.

ISPs are fully within there rights to block any computer that has been
infected and is pumping out spam or is being used as an open relay.

They are also within there rights to traffic shape P2P traffic, so long as
they are open and honest about it IMHO. In fact there may even be a niche
market for an ISP that completely blocks P2P traffic.. (particualrly for
business users) but you wont see me there anytime soon.

If you dont agree with traffic shaping and demand full speed 24/7 then phone
your ISP and ask them for a price for a 8Mbit international circuit with
100% CIR ... might pay to be sitting down if you think that $49/month (or
thereabouts) entitles you to this as some of the people on here seem to
think.

(Hint.. igrins 256/256kbps 100% Cir wireless plan is $469/month)

El Chippy



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
El Chippy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006

"Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
news:eimasb$u2r$(E-Mail Removed)...
> peterwn wrote:
>
>>
>> Shane wrote:
>>> peterwn wrote:
>>>
>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>>

>> They are two completely different situations.

>
> They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a mix
> of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses
>
>> In the case of spambots,
>> the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
>> caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
>> consent of the account owner.

>
> And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the
> innocent
> users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
> only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host
>


Or rather than disconnect them entirely how bout connect them to a seperate
network which has no access to the real world, but automatically connects
there first http request to a server identifying what the issue is, and
giving info on how to remedy it ( a deicated server with all the latest
security patches for Windows, common *nix distros and apps, commonly hacked
software, and howtos and maybe allow http connections only to some security
sites) Such a server/database could be housed at Peering exchanges and paid
for by the ISPs that use the exchange. A collective effort by the ISPs that
could lower the costs by building up a good knowledge base and lowering the
costs of hiring all those helldesk staff after a while.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
El Chippy wrote:

>
> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
> news:eimasb$u2r$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> peterwn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Shane wrote:
>>>> peterwn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>>>
>>> They are two completely different situations.

>>
>> They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a
>> mix of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses
>>
>>> In the case of spambots,
>>> the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
>>> caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
>>> consent of the account owner.

>>
>> And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the
>> innocent
>> users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
>> only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host
>>

>
> Or rather than disconnect them entirely how bout connect them to a
> seperate network which has no access to the real world, but automatically
> connects there first http request to a server identifying what the issue
> is, and giving info on how to remedy it ( a deicated server with all the
> latest security patches for Windows, common *nix distros and apps,
> commonly hacked software, and howtos and maybe allow http connections only
> to some security
> sites)


Lets be honest here, youre asking <clueless infected user> to do what they
should have done in the first place (update their box to the latest/current
patches)
Add to that you are going to have to remove spyware/virii that will be
fairly well embedded
Not trivial in any sense of the word

> Such a server/database could be housed at Peering exchanges and
> paid for by the ISPs that use the exchange. A collective effort by the
> ISPs that could lower the costs by building up a good knowledge base and
> lowering the costs of hiring all those helldesk staff after a while.



Unfortunately you can count on one hand the instances where the major ISP's
have joined together in collective agreements that should lower all their
costs (re: peering)



The problem I have is, I run a mail server from my home adsl connection, I
have spam problems (hell just reporting the spam is enough to oom my
mailserver)
All it will take under these so-called solutions is for <malicious
complaint> or <inept-admin> to see the port 25 traffic coming from my
connection and assume thats a spambot
I *already* have problems sending mail because a blacklist lists *all* of
ihugs domestic ips
(Despite the word static in my rdns)




--
Leela: [to Bender] That aerosal head spray makes your antenna smell nice...
Bender: Thank you.
Leela: ...but it's doing long-term damage to the planet.
Bender: So? It's not like it's the only one we've got.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
El Chippy wrote:

>
> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
> news:eile33$8kc$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>

>
> Do you not see the major difference between the two?
>
> SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
> computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
> person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
> dont want.
>
> P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
> software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.


P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples p2p
Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of news
lately isnt just some made up word
Exchanges are congested because of p2p
p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
traffic issue)



<snip miss the point>
> El Chippy


--
Fry: I'm going to enroll here at Mars University and drop out all over
again!
Leela: You won't last two weeks!
Fry: Aw, thanks for believing in me.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
Craig Shore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
On 5 Nov 2006 15:52:22 -0800, "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Shane wrote:
>> peterwn wrote:
>>
>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>

>They are two completely different situations. In the case of spambots,
>the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
>caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
>consent of the account owner. The ISP can then reconnect them once the
>account holder has cleaned things up, installed the latest updates,
>installed anti-virus etc - golly, after doing all this it would be
>easier to install Linux and Open Office and be done with it.


Telstraclear does this.

And re linux, if all anyone ever wanted was email,a www browser and an office
package then lots more people would have switched ages ago.


 
Reply With Quote
 
El Chippy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006

"Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
news:eimgtc$7nu$(E-Mail Removed)...
> El Chippy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
>> news:eile33$8kc$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>>

>>
>> Do you not see the major difference between the two?
>>
>> SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
>> computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
>> person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
>> dont want.
>>
>> P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
>> software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

>
> P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
> I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples
> p2p
> Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of
> news
> lately isnt just some made up word
> Exchanges are congested because of p2p
> p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
> traffic issue)
>


Your web browsing affects my P2P traffic, i want your connection killed so i
get better speeds...
I pay for my traffic, same as you. That we use our connections for different
things is not the issue. i could use as much bandwidth with streaming video
traffic as with P2P. If you restrict P2P traffic, another way will be found
to get the data moving.

Overloaded exchanges are a telecom NZ monopoly problem (dishing the $$ out
to the executives and shareholders while raping ISPs and users alike via a
monopoly position), not a P2P problem. Once the ISPs get access to the
copper this will hopefully be resolved by ISPs competing for the business on
a level field. Orcon has already announced they will probably be
implementing VDSL2... i cant see them doing that until they have a strategy
for avoiding backhaul issues. Then you will be able to pick an ISP that
provides what you want, and pay accordingly.

P2P users will have to tolerate higher contention ratios in exchange for
higher traffic caps/lower costs. Light use web browsers will be able to get
lightning speeds but lower traffic caps. Gamers will go for an ISP that
prioritises gaming traffic and provides local servers.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
El Chippy wrote:

>
> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
> news:eimgtc$7nu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> El Chippy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eile33$8kc$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
>>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
>>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you not see the major difference between the two?
>>>
>>> SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
>>> computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
>>> person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
>>> dont want.
>>>
>>> P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
>>> software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

>>
>> P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
>> I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples
>> p2p
>> Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of
>> news
>> lately isnt just some made up word
>> Exchanges are congested because of p2p
>> p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
>> traffic issue)
>>

>
> Your web browsing affects my P2P traffic, i want your connection killed so
> i get better speeds...
> I pay for my traffic, same as you. That we use our connections for
> different things is not the issue. i could use as much bandwidth with
> streaming video
> traffic as with P2P. If you restrict P2P traffic, another way will be
> found to get the data moving.
>


well done, you miss the point so well I should start calling you fred

> Overloaded exchanges are a telecom NZ monopoly problem (dishing the $$ out
> to the executives and shareholders while raping ISPs and users alike via a
> monopoly position), not a P2P problem. Once the ISPs get access to the
> copper this will hopefully be resolved by ISPs competing for the business
> on
> a level field.


*sigh*
Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users


> Orcon has already announced they will probably be
> implementing VDSL2... i cant see them doing that until they have a
> strategy for avoiding backhaul issues. Then you will be able to pick an
> ISP that provides what you want, and pay accordingly.
>
> P2P users will have to tolerate higher contention ratios in exchange for
> higher traffic caps/lower costs. Light use web browsers will be able to
> get lightning speeds but lower traffic caps. Gamers will go for an ISP
> that prioritises gaming traffic and provides local servers.



Congratulations, you have just proved that your argument on p2p affecting
nobody but the two exchanging data was invalid


--
Humorbot 5.0: Anecdote accepted. Snappy comeback not found.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fran
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
Shane wrote:
>
> *sigh*
> Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users
>


That could be changed to...

"Use of the bandwidth affects other users"

And still be true.

Fran

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2006
Fran wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>>
>> *sigh*
>> Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users
>>

>
> That could be changed to...
>
> "Use of the bandwidth affects other users"
>
> And still be true.
>
> Fran
>



Thats very true, however for some reason the person I was responding to
doesnt understand that basic concept

--
Bender: Save my friends! And Zoidberg!

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Spyware Blocklist and other stuff posted sponge Computer Security 8 03-30-2005 07:34 AM
Security Blocklist Converter 2.16 YK Computer Security 0 07-08-2003 01:20 PM



Advertisments