Yahoo blocking Road Runner
Jo Bo
doing it again.
Joe R.
Agent_C
wrote:
>Six or so months ago RR started blocking all my yahoo mail. Well they're
>doing it again.
Nope... Just sent and received a test email from one of my Yahoo
accounts with no problems.
A_C
bscabl
"Agent_C" <Agent-C-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rufqa0h1fkcpv06fi...@4ax.com...
Jo Bo
frustrating call and no help from RR I put in another nic, same brand etc
for drivers, then a reboot got me another IP and within mineuts I was
getting yahoo mail again.
JoBo
"Jo Bo" <jro...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uZ9rc.441$y04...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
hxba...@cap.rr.com
About six weeks ago, e-mail from a university in Idaho was blocked by RR
for several weeks.
But the real problem is people, many who should never be let into the
same room with a computer.
scan...@look.ca
between a spammer at a large ISP and the ISP itself. As almost every ISP
reassigns IP addresses, and many spammers use open relays and fake names
and, often, fake IP addresses too, the black lists are becoming more and
more a failure at blocking what they were intended to block, and more and
more an annoyance. RR uses one or two of these services! That is why they
end up cutting off all of the customers at a Rogers, or a Yahoo or a large
university! Black List services simply do NOT cut off the correct
originators of spam!
-----------------------------------------------------------
hxba...@cap.rr.com wrote:
>At this rate, soon no one will be able to send mail outside of their ISP.
>
>About six weeks ago, e-mail from a university in Idaho was blocked by RR
>for several weeks.
>
>But the real problem is people, many who should never be let into the
>same room with a computer.
============================================================
Scan...@Look.CA Toronto, ON, Canada
Copyright retained for what it is worth. If this is illegal
where you are, do not read it. Trademark also retained.....
Richard Steiner
-= Hawk =- <Ha...@Spam-Me-Not.cfl.rr.com> spake unto us, saying:
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:50:25 -0400, scan...@look.ca scribbled:
>
>> Black List services simply do NOT cut off the correct
>>originators of spam!
>
>So come up with something better....
My ISP uses this service, and it seems to correctly identify infected
e-mails and various types of spam while also allowing me to identify
individuals and mailing lists and put them in a "white list".
It's quite slick. Probably expensive for individuals, but I don't know
the details (it's part of the basic service package here).
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.
Syntax Error
"-= Hawk =-" <Ha...@Spam-Me-Not.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jcdsa01lafle6lqqn1t2q786pv6ipo2nl2@news-server...
> >originators of spam!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The world is waiting.....
>
>
>
> Well?
>
Require all email users to prove their identity to their ISP's. If they
start spamming, give the ISP's the right to bill their credit cards for the
damage done and ban them from ever getting another account on any ISP.
Richard Steiner
-= Hawk =- <Ha...@Spam-Me-Not.cfl.rr.com> spake unto us, saying:
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:38:52 -0500, rste...@visi.com (Richard Steiner)
>scribbled:
>
>>http://www.postini.com
>>
>>My ISP uses this service, and it seems to correctly identify infected
>>e-mails and various types of spam while also allowing me to identify
>>individuals and mailing lists and put them in a "white list".
>>
>>It's quite slick. Probably expensive for individuals, but I don't know
>>the details (it's part of the basic service package here).
>
>That's still someone else's solution. Where's yours?
It *completely* solves my problems with spam by keeping my personal
e-mail account squeaky clean, and it does so with very few negative
side effects that I can detect.
That makes it a perfectly viable solution in my context.
If you have different requirements, perhaps a service like Postini is
not optimal in your particular context, but that doesn't mean it isn't
a viable solution in the general case.
Lee Drake
news:9onsa0t489b286an0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:50:25 -0400, in
> <fi5sa0lcn5kl83j30...@4ax.com>, scan...@look.ca
> wrote:
>
> >And with the black list services that seem to be unable to differentiate
> >between a spammer at a large ISP and the ISP itself. As almost every ISP
> >reassigns IP addresses, and many spammers use open relays and fake names
> >and, often, fake IP addresses too, the black lists are becoming more and
> >more a failure at blocking what they were intended to block, and more and
> >more an annoyance. RR uses one or two of these services! That is why
they
> >end up cutting off all of the customers at a Rogers, or a Yahoo or a
large
> >university! Black List services simply do NOT cut off the correct
> >originators of spam!
>
> include only the IPs from which spam originates.
>
> That is definitely NOT what many blacklists do - simply because
> it is NOT effective at stopping spam. They usually start off
> listing the specific IP, but when the ISP fails to deal with the
> problem the IP range that is blocked is expanded until it
> includes all the corporate mail servers or even the entire
> network.
I would like to note that an ISP can get dragged into this whole thing
because users are idiots. If their box is compromised and is sending email
through your box - it's not always possible to identify where the
compromised email is coming from. I have a mail server that I resell mail
services to companies from. People can only send email through my server if
they are authenticated (IE they need to use their user name and password to
forward mail through me). Nonetheless - I don't provide IP services to my
clients. They use their own ISPs. Might be Roadrunner, Frontier, etc. If
they get their box hacked and turned into a forwarding service they might
well start sending spam or viruses through my server. I can do what I can
with statistical filtering and connection filtering to stop them - but
ultimately the only thing I can do is track down who THEIR ISP is and
complain to them. So far my success rate at stopping infected or
compromised machines by complaining to other ISP's about them is Zero. I
can block their IP from sending - but as soon as they DHCP a new one, the
problem starts all over. My software doesn't log usernames/passwords (for
good security reasons) so I cannot track down who they are logging in as.
The industry needs a way of authenticating senders that does not involve
each sender (or even each ISP) purchasing expensive licenses, email systems,
or certificates. A registry such as the DNS could be used for this, but the
system would need to be much more global and robust to allow users to
authenticate.
Cheers,
Lee
Tipper
-= Hawk =- wrote in message ...
>>-= Hawk =- <Ha...@Spam-Me-Not.cfl.rr.com> spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:50:25 -0400, scan...@look.ca scribbled:
>>>
>>>> Black List services simply do NOT cut off the correct
>>>>originators of spam!
>>>
>>>So come up with something better....
>>
>>http://www.postini.com
>>
>>My ISP uses this service, and it seems to correctly identify infected
>>e-mails and various types of spam while also allowing me to identify
>>individuals and mailing lists and put them in a "white list".
>>
>>It's quite slick. Probably expensive for individuals, but I don't know
>>the details (it's part of the basic service package here).
>
>
>'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
>Riddles II, v3
>- T. Pratchett
What a freaking nit wit. Like this guy owes you a solution of his own.Find
another corner to hawk this one is fine.
Bender
<saddl...@look.ca> wrote in message
news:re8va015j064m2dpu...@4ax.com...
> My problem is the number of lists I am part of. Some send me the emails
> directly from the members, instead of digesting them and replacing the
'from'
> with the list's own name. In fact MANY do that so that from a security
> viewpoint I know who I might want to ban, etc. This sort of way of
running
> things works for them but makes maintenance of a white list a horrible
> effort. You do NOT know who will be sending mail in that you want to see,
> and if you do not have them in your white list it becomes a chore to get
them
> into your white list. I use 6 different email accounts at 4 different ISPs
as
> well, which also makes the effort a real pain in the rump. That is part
of
> the reason I do NOT believe blacklists and whitelists work. When a
blacklist
> bans an entire ISP who has hundreds of thousands of customers and does NOT
> permit someone to have a whitelist to permit reception from someone who is
a
> customer of that banned ISP, then what? If you have a whitelist and your
ISP
> is RR they will ignore your whitelist if there is a general blacklist,
since
> nothing will get TO your whitelist - blacklist comes first, and is not
even
> at the ISP, since they have contracted this out for their hundreds of
> thousands of clients.
>
> It is even more interesting when trans-border issues are involved, and the
> Free Trade Agreement, different interpretations of international law, and
> differing privacy legislation is involved. I am in Canada and use a
Canadian
> ISP. The blacklist operator is in the US, and the ISP I cannot seem to
use
> to contact my friends AT THAT ISP is also in the US. I could just as
easily
> be in Europe and subject to European privacy legislation as well as
Canadian
> laws.
>
> Recently the US was found to be in violation of their treaty obligations
when
> it comes to the US banning offshore casinos. It is AGAINST International
> Laws for them to do that, and the WTO has ruled that the US has NO right
to
> interfere in international electronic trade by banning out of the US
casinos.
>
> Just watch to see how fast the US Congress and the White House legalises
use
> of off shore Casinos, or requires US Credit Card companies to honour debt
> payments made by US citizens to off shore casinos.
>
> Similarly, the US has lost trade cases to Europe and to Canada lately and
has
> simply tried to figure out new ways to keep the same type of illegal trade
> protection or illegal farm subsidies or illegal subsidies to US
> manufacturers.
>
> The use of a blacklist to ban a non-US ISP because of the actions of a few
> spammers, who may in fact be using open relays at one or two of that ISPs
> customers and not using the ISPs own resources except incidentally, IS a
> restraint of trade that may well violate international law or the Free
Trade
> Agreement, but try to get that concept across to RR or their supplier of
> blacklist services. They will say they simply do not care if they are
> violating international laws or treaties. I know because I have pointed
that
> out to them with little success.
>
> Eventually, however, it will all work out and the US backbone will be so
> jammed with SPAM and Swen.A worms and other garbage that we outside the US
> won't have to worry... No one will be able to communicate in the US!
>
> Until then.... its Victoria Day Weekend, so enjoy the three day weekend...
>
> The Saddle Maker of Toronto...
>
> --------------------------
>
> rste...@visi.com (Richard Steiner) wrote:
>
> >That makes it a perfectly viable solution in my context.
> >
> >If you have different requirements, perhaps a service like Postini is
> >not optimal in your particular context, but that doesn't mean it isn't
> >a viable solution in the general case.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The Saddle Custom Made for Women - Saddl...@look.ca
N
says...
> In article <MPG.1b19cc582...@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, Leythos
> vo...@nowhere.comsays...
> > I've seen your example too - and I've seen more cases where it was
> > blocked when a proper firewall and AV was installed and only the single
> > SMTP service outbound was available.
> I can see this, except it precludes using an outside smtp server to actually
> send from an account I have access to.
Although I don't anticipate my ISP to block port 25 out any time soon, it
won't have an adverse impact on me. I can get to a mail relay on a port
other than 25, if necessary. The RFCs actually have established port 587 as
an SMTP AUTH port. If enough ISPs are blocking port 25 I imagine that the
alternative mail services will be more inclined to add port 587 for
alternative connections.
--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint