http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/22/tech.spam.reut/index.html
"Consumers who allow their infected computers to send out millions of
"spam" messages could be unplugged from the Internet under a proposal
released Tuesday by six large e-mail providers."
-Hank
one of those members is comcast..the #1 source of spam for a while running..ironic isn't it?
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At least they now realize they are one of the worst and are finally
becoming proactive:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5230615.html
They are also starting to block port 25.
-b
That is still reactive (first the abuse has to occur, then you try and
filter anymore from occuring), at least they might be now be doing
something that everyone else has been doing for years.
So far today we've only blocked 3381 attempts from dynamic comcast.net
space to send email to our users.
Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers,
at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if
the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send
out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done.
sam
According to my daily log reports, I cannot tell!
Comcast persistently remains the number 1 source of zombie spamming to my
network.
My bad! I was too busy with that pesky little thing called "work" to
scrutinize my grammar before I sent 
It is reactive, but they are
at least doing something.
Completely blocking port 25 (except to comcast mail servers) will stop
zombies, but not people intentionally sending spam. Anyone with a
shell account can still forward traffic from an arbitrary port to 25
on an open relay.
They are definitely not taking the "hard line against spam" either,
but at least they are making an effort.
warning. this is about spamming pc's. hit D now.
[comcast] [is] definitely not taking the "hard line against spam" either,
but at least they are making an effort.
sure, if you mean their marketing department is making an effort to insulate
their sales department from decreasing revenue by taking a hard line against
spam, and to insulate their eng/ops from increasing costs by taking a hard
line against spam.
this group of vendors wants to stamp out what they call "wild spam" in order
to make the world safe for pink contracts and what we call "mainsleaze spam".
as long as it doesn't increase their costs or decrease their revenues that is.
yahoo domainkeys and microsoft callerid are wonderful technologies if you
care about preventing the yahoo and microsoft domain/trademark names from
being diluted by spammers. but even at full implementation, the only impact
will be to protect domainholders against sender-forgery, at which point the
spammers will have to use real domain names they get from .biz at $5 each,
and the total spam sent continue to rise month by month.
and what a marketing triumph THAT will be.
To me, this smacks of an intent to continue ignoring the root cause of the problem(the box is 0wnz0r3d) and just shoving it under the rug. When these customers move to another provider, they will still have the problem, and the cost of educating the customer (w/r/t spam, virii, etc) gets shunted to the next ISP the customer moves to.
~Ben
Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers,
at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if
the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send
out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done.
No, that would be punishing before the crime happened. Responsible would be to punish swiftly after the fact, but not before.
Pete