|
Heyall!
I came across extremely frustrating news today, when I logged opened my
computer hit a Send/Receive on Outlook, got a whole load of messages,
replied to them - only to determine that my ISP has now blanket-blocked
outgoing port 25 due to "network integrity & security".
The first thing I did was get on the phone with customer support, etc. spoke
with them for about an hour and a half - with the conclusion that unless I
upgrade to Business Class services, I will be unable to unblock the now
closed port 25.
This was of course in summary.
My trouble is, do they not defy the definition of "Internet Services" when
they block port 25? The "workaround" accroding to them was either upgrade to
Business Class or use their mailservers. From my understanding, the Internet
was designed to be an ad-hoc system with an archaic infrarstrucute. No
beginning and no end. No start and no finish. By definition when one would
provide Internet services to another, they would be required - by law I
assume; being they provide "Internet Services" - to give unblocked,
unmoderated access to any service the Internet has to offer - or for that
matter an "Inter-Network" access point - from wherby I can access other
"Networks" - regardless of what I want to access on them.
Assuming I need to send mail from my corporate mail servers only, for a
number of technical reasons, I will now be unable to do so. The log which
continues to stump - how can they block a "primitive Internet Service" if
they are supposedly providing me with "Internet Services"? order "Cable TV
Service" from the cable company and I receive a clear, quality picture with
a 100-some-odd channels. I ordered "Telephone Service" from the telephone
company and I recieve telephone service unconditionally. I order "Internet
Service" and now I'm suddenly stuck with their definition of Internet - if I
want to send e-mail I can - but only through what they call "our mail
servers". Suppose I wanted to use my "Internet Service" to send e-mail via
another mail server - I now cannot do that. Does this violate the contract I
have with them - the basic and bare service they should be providing me
with - "Internet Service"?
I am extremely aggitated over this issue and if someone would be able to
possibly explain how they can charge me for "Internet Services" - or
possibly define "Internet Services" - when I am actually being offered
something other than that.
As a side note - America Online would be a prime example of an organization
which does NOT provide Internet Services. They provide a portal service
which in addition - has a gateway to the Internet. They allow their members
to browse the 'net, surf and do what they like - all within the realms of
their own portal service. If they decided it was harmful to their portal
service to allow mail, or music to pass through via the Internet, I can
understand how they legally and unconditionally block it. But ISP's serve
their customers not with intermediary portals services, rather backbone
access to a larger network - the Internet.
I also do know, if I don't like them I can always leave - but I really want
to know - can they legally do what they are doing? Blocking ports at their
discretion?
Thank y'all for the help!
-Michael
|
| |
| |
"OptOnline News" <mynews@michoel.com> wrote in
news:XU3_c.3733$lv3.999459@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
Heyall!
I came across extremely frustrating news today, when I logged opened
my computer hit a Send/Receive on Outlook, got a whole load of
messages, replied to them - only to determine that my ISP has now
blanket-blocked outgoing port 25 due to "network integrity &
security".
The first thing I did was get on the phone with customer support, etc.
spoke with them for about an hour and a half - with the conclusion
that unless I upgrade to Business Class services, I will be unable to
unblock the now closed port 25.
This was of course in summary.
My trouble is, do they not defy the definition of "Internet Services"
when they block port 25? The "workaround" accroding to them was either
upgrade to Business Class or use their mailservers. From my
understanding, the Internet was designed to be an ad-hoc system with
an archaic infrarstrucute. No beginning and no end. No start and no
finish. By definition when one would provide Internet services to
another, they would be required - by law I assume; being they provide
"Internet Services" - to give unblocked, unmoderated access to any
service the Internet has to offer - or for that matter an
"Inter-Network" access point - from wherby I can access other
"Networks" - regardless of what I want to access on them.
Assuming I need to send mail from my corporate mail servers only, for
a number of technical reasons, I will now be unable to do so. The log
which continues to stump - how can they block a "primitive Internet
Service" if they are supposedly providing me with "Internet Services"?
order "Cable TV Service" from the cable company and I receive a clear,
quality picture with a 100-some-odd channels. I ordered "Telephone
Service" from the telephone company and I recieve telephone service
unconditionally. I order "Internet Service" and now I'm suddenly stuck
with their definition of Internet - if I want to send e-mail I can -
but only through what they call "our mail servers". Suppose I wanted
to use my "Internet Service" to send e-mail via another mail server -
I now cannot do that. Does this violate the contract I have with them
- the basic and bare service they should be providing me with -
"Internet Service"?
I am extremely aggitated over this issue and if someone would be able
to possibly explain how they can charge me for "Internet Services" -
or possibly define "Internet Services" - when I am actually being
offered something other than that.
As a side note - America Online would be a prime example of an
organization which does NOT provide Internet Services. They provide a
portal service which in addition - has a gateway to the Internet. They
allow their members to browse the 'net, surf and do what they like -
all within the realms of their own portal service. If they decided it
was harmful to their portal service to allow mail, or music to pass
through via the Internet, I can understand how they legally and
unconditionally block it. But ISP's serve their customers not with
intermediary portals services, rather backbone access to a larger
network - the Internet.
I also do know, if I don't like them I can always leave - but I really
want to know - can they legally do what they are doing? Blocking ports
at their discretion?
I'm not going to address the issue of whether or not an ISP *should*
block common services like SMTP (port 25). I can understand that they're
under a lot of pressure to stop spam and viruses, but it pisses me off
when it happens too.
There are a couple workarounds that you might want to explore. Port 25 is
for outgoing SMTP service, when your email client connects to a server to
send a message. In most cases, you can simply use your ISP's SMTP server
to send your messages. You can supply a "Reply To" and "From" address
from whatever email address you want, so to the casual reader, the
messages look like they're coming from your domain anyway. The fly in
this ointment is when some ISPs also require that the From address must
be withing their dominan... in that case, you're well and truely screwed.
The other option is to check with your email service provider and see if
they provide an alternate SMTP port. This is getting more and more common
as more ISPs block port 25. Port 2525 is a common alternate port. If your
email service provider doesn't have an alternate SMTP port, ask them to
add one - it's not a difficult change. So far, I've never seen an ISP
that blocks port 2525, since it's a non-privileged port.
Hope that helps.
|
| |
| |
If they are selling you "Internet access", wouldn't that be like the
phone company selling you "telephone service", but then listening to
your conversations and deciding to randomly drop calls when it didn't
like what you were saying, as part of a secret unadvertised policy?
"Oh! When we sold you 'telephone service', we didn't mean you could
just dial any calls in your service area! Why would you think that?"
There are plenty of services called "telephone service" that don't
let you dial arbitrary numbers or even dial at all: there are tie
lines between company PBX systems in different cities, dedicated
lines that go from one point to another point with no possibility
of dialing elsewhere, and "hot line" lines where you pick up the
phone and it calls a fixed number (no dialing involved from the
"caller"). These are still called "telephone service".
It is my understanding that telephone companies DO refuse calls
between certain destinations, mostly for collect and/or credit card
calls. Certain countries are just off-limits for credit card or
collect calls. Certain countries are just off-limits for calls
from payphones (largely because of high fraud rates).
Blocking of calls to 900 numbers, 976 numbers, and directory
assistance is common (and no, I'm not just talking about business
PBX setups, I'm talking about blocking done by a phone company
itself). The telephone company may impose 900 number blocking over
your objections if you refuse to pay for a 900 number call.
Calls to toll-free numbers from outside their calling area are
blocked. Nowadays, most toll-free numbers in the USA allow calling
from the whole United States, but that was definitely not true in
the past and there are some limited ones still. Some allowed you
to call from every state EXCEPT the state where the call destination.
And it's still a problem (but not necessarily impossible) to call
a USA 800 number from outside the USA, Canada, and Mexico even if
the caller wishes to pay for the call themselves.
Southwestern Bell sent me a notice a decade or so ago that residential
customers weren't going to be allowed to make international calls
unless they specifically asked for the privilege, and jumped through
unspecified hoops to get it (probably having to do with credit
checks and deposits). I never investigated further.
Then, of course, there is Call Blocking which allows a call recipient to
block calls from a small number of calling numbers.
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
OptOnline News wrote:
Heyall!
I came across extremely frustrating news today, when I logged opened my
computer hit a Send/Receive on Outlook, got a whole load of messages,
replied to them - only to determine that my ISP has now blanket-blocked
outgoing port 25 due to "network integrity & security".
The first thing I did was get on the phone with customer support, etc. spoke
with them for about an hour and a half - with the conclusion that unless I
upgrade to Business Class services, I will be unable to unblock the now
closed port 25.
This was of course in summary.
My trouble is, do they not defy the definition of "Internet Services" when
they block port 25? The "workaround" accroding to them was either upgrade to
Business Class or use their mailservers. From my understanding, the Internet
was designed to be an ad-hoc system with an archaic infrarstrucute. No
beginning and no end. No start and no finish. By definition when one would
provide Internet services to another, they would be required - by law I
assume; being they provide "Internet Services" - to give unblocked,
unmoderated access to any service the Internet has to offer - or for that
matter an "Inter-Network" access point - from wherby I can access other
"Networks" - regardless of what I want to access on them.
Assuming I need to send mail from my corporate mail servers only, for a
number of technical reasons, I will now be unable to do so. The log which
continues to stump - how can they block a "primitive Internet Service" if
they are supposedly providing me with "Internet Services"? order "Cable TV
Service" from the cable company and I receive a clear, quality picture with
a 100-some-odd channels. I ordered "Telephone Service" from the telephone
company and I recieve telephone service unconditionally. I order "Internet
Service" and now I'm suddenly stuck with their definition of Internet - if I
want to send e-mail I can - but only through what they call "our mail
servers". Suppose I wanted to use my "Internet Service" to send e-mail via
another mail server - I now cannot do that. Does this violate the contract I
have with them - the basic and bare service they should be providing me
with - "Internet Service"?
I am extremely aggitated over this issue and if someone would be able to
possibly explain how they can charge me for "Internet Services" - or
possibly define "Internet Services" - when I am actually being offered
something other than that.
As a side note - America Online would be a prime example of an organization
which does NOT provide Internet Services. They provide a portal service
which in addition - has a gateway to the Internet. They allow their members
to browse the 'net, surf and do what they like - all within the realms of
their own portal service. If they decided it was harmful to their portal
service to allow mail, or music to pass through via the Internet, I can
understand how they legally and unconditionally block it. But ISP's serve
their customers not with intermediary portals services, rather backbone
access to a larger network - the Internet.
I also do know, if I don't like them I can always leave - but I really want
to know - can they legally do what they are doing? Blocking ports at their
discretion?
Thank y'all for the help!
-Michael
Blocking e-mail forwarding that uses Port 25 is very common, it keeps
spammers from forwarding e-mail through another ISP. Stooping one
"service" does not mean you are denied Internet Services. You need to
look at your Service Agreement with your ISP to see what rights you have.
g-w
|
| |
| |
|
