Slashdot Mirror


AOL Bans Mail From DSL-Hosted Servers

kmself writes "As first reported at linux-elitists by Aaron Sherman, and with a demonstration of the denial at zIWETHEY, AOL has begun blocking mailservers identified with residential DSL lines as an anti-spam measure, apparently heedless of the huge collateral damage this move imposes (and guess who can't send mail to Mom...). This action was unannounced, and has received virtually no coverage, spare an oblique mention at News.com. It also violates SMTP RFCs, as Aaron points out, not to mention the 'good neighbor' conventions of Internet communications. Mail to AOL's postmaster is also bounced -- this is RFC-ignorant. I strongly recommend that as a compensatory measure, non-AOL MTAs be configured to deny all incoming mail from AOL's domain."

70 of 882 comments (clear)

  1. heh... by di0s · · Score: 4, Funny

    You (don't) have mail!

    1. Re:heh... by ThreeZee · · Score: 3, Informative

      550-The IP address you're using to connect to AOL is either open to the 550-free relaying of e-mail, is serving as an open proxy, or is a dynamic 550-(residential) IP address. AOL cannot accept further e-mail 550-transactions from your server until either your server is closed to free 550-relaying/proxy, or your ISP removes your IP address from their list of 550-dynamic IP addresses. For additional information, please visit 550 http://postmaster.info.aol.com. Comcast IPs are now blocked also. (That's cable!)

    2. Re:heh... by Synocco · · Score: 4, Funny

      At the risk of offending the grammar nazis, shouldn't that be "You've don't got mail!" or maybe "You ain't got no mail!"

  2. bouncing mail to postmaster? by fyonn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought that was a requirement of having a domain and you can lose the domain if mail is not accepted or read there? I'd have to check the rfc's but wouldn;t that be a thing, someone taking aol's domain from them because they don;t accept mail for postmaster?

    dave

    1. Re:bouncing mail to postmaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would never happen. That would be like a multi-billion dollar technology company like, oh, say Microsoft, forgetting to renew their domain registration.

      Not in our lifetimes :)

    2. Re:bouncing mail to postmaster? by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative
      Nope. It's actually in RFC2821 section 4.5.1 - Minimum Implementation:

      Any system that includes an SMTP server supporting mail relaying or delivery MUST support the reserved mailbox "postmaster" as a case-insensitive local name. This postmaster address is not strictly necessary if the server always returns 554 on connection opening (as described in section 3.1). The requirement to accept mail for postmaster implies that RCPT commands which specify a mailbox for postmaster at any of the domains for which the SMTP server provides mail service, as well as the special case of "RCPT TO:" (with no domain specification), MUST be supported.

      SMTP systems are expected to make every reasonable effort to accept mail directed to Postmaster from any other system on the Internet. In extreme cases --such as to contain a denial of service attack or other breach of security-- an SMTP server may block mail directed to Postmaster. However, such arrangements SHOULD be narrowly tailored so as to avoid blocking messages which are not part of such attacks.

      Note that there are no punitive measures are listed at all, in fact the worst that can happen for bending an RFC is that you will be named and shamed on a site like www.rfc-ignorant.org and maybe be blocked by some system admins. If you actually *break* the protocol on the otherhand, then things will probably get a little more ugly... ;)
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:bouncing mail to postmaster? by ajs · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's worse. Here are the ways that I know AOL is violating RFCs for valid mail traffic:

      1. Mail bound for postmaster@aol.com is not accepted.

      2. They issue a 550 response before the client has a chance to issue a greeting. There are two allowed responses at that point: 554 and 220. 550 is right out.

      3. They disconnect before the client issues a "QUIT" command or times out. Also bogus.

      AOL is playing a game of chicken here to see how much of the net will blacklist them for breaking the RFCs. Once they smell blood in the water because not enough sites care, they can pretty much start writing their own book....

    4. Re:bouncing mail to postmaster? by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you actually *break* the protocol on the otherhand, then things will probably get a little more ugly

      Then it's time for it to get ugly. AOL breaks the protocol by issuing at 550 (not a 554) and not leaving the session open until timeout or client issues "QUIT" (you are allowd to say "553 Get bent" to every command issued, but you're not allowed to disconnect).

      Let the blacklisting of AOL begin!

      RFCs aside, though, they're blacklisting folks for getting an address assigned by a protocol. This is arbitrary and foolish. It also eliminates a lot of good mail.

      I'll keep running my mail server, and AOL can keep ignoring me, but I'm going to start sending my friends and familly to AOL's competition, must as I hate to because that's mostly folks like MSN and the regional phone companies.

    5. Re:bouncing mail to postmaster? by ajs · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A status of 550 should only be sent in response to a command, not to connection.

      Correct, and what's more they issue that 550 ending with "550 Goodbye" and then a connection reset (TCP-"R") packet, which is also in violation of the RFC.

      If you run SpamAssassin, I highly recommend adding:
      score RCVD_IN_RFCI 0 3 0 3
      to your /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf. If everyone on the net does this, it won't block AOL's mail (or any other RFC-ignorant site), but it will mean that you have a much lower level of tollerance for spam-like mail from them.

      It's not punative so much as showing them the right way to have solved this problem. Yes, AOL gets a lot of mail; yes, filtering spam out of it is hard; but if they simply weighted blacklists based on how accurate they are (as SA does) and then combined the results of several lists from dynips to rfci to relays with those weights, then they could make an accurate assessment, inform the sites that are blacklisted appropriately (in conformance with the RFC).

      Ultimately, even after issuing that 554, if someone pushes on with a "RCPT To: postmaster@aol.com", they should accept it so that the site has a usable route for delivering mail to assert that the problem has been solved, but that would be a rare occurance if the lists were public and used/maintained correctly.

      Bah.
  3. No problem by JanneM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I long ago includedevery mail from aol.com, yahoo.com and hotmail.com in my static spam filters. If anybody with such an account wants to mail me, they need to get in touch with some other account (or other means) first so I can add an excemption to them. To date I have three such excemptions total, all on yahoo.com.

    I can't very well block them further than I already do, in other words.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:No problem by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've never had a single spam message from those places.

      I've had a few, but in the main, you are correct in saying not much spam comes from aol.com. However, an awful lot of spam *claims* to come from aol.com, even when it actually originates in China, Korea, or some spamhaus in the USA/EU. For this reason refusing mail from aol.com and others may give exceedingly good results with low enough colateral damage to be bearable for some home mail server operators.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:No problem by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've experienced several cases of spammers using what appears to be my @yahoo.com address to send out spam.

      Serves you right for choosing an address of slutty.coeds@yahoo.com.

  4. Your Mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry, I am on AOL. I will send your mom a note.

  5. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States Postal Service has announced it will stop delivering
    any mail from Florida, due to the large number of mail-order scams
    originating from that state.

  6. Eathlink does this too. by statusbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My friend pays for a "static" Ip address on his cable modem to run some private corporate web forums. A few weeks ago, all email notifications from the forums going to anyone hosted at earthlink.net were bouncing - The message is "No email accepted from dynamic IP addresses".
    Both AOL and Earthlink have TONS of subscribers.

    If they both decide to carry on doing this, there is nothing you can do about it.

    Truth is, SMTP sucks. They are only doing this because of all the spam. Yes they are violating RFC's. Too bad...

    --jeff++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
    1. Re:Eathlink does this too. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this turns into the death of SMTP, I won't cry.

      The fact is, SMTP is based on the flawed assumptions that every e-mail sent is one that the recipient wants to see because nobody would ever spam, and that there's no harm in letting the message travel unencrypted because nobody would ever snoop.

      It's time for reform in the overall e-mail system, the only problem is that there's a huge installed user base that'd be forced to upgrade in order for a new e-mail protocol to work. It's gonna take something silly like this to get out of hand for that to happen.

    2. Re:Eathlink does this too. by kcbrown · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's time for reform in the overall e-mail system, the only problem is that there's a huge installed user base that'd be forced to upgrade in order for a new e-mail protocol to work. It's gonna take something silly like this to get out of hand for that to happen.

      You don't need a new protocol. The one we have will work fine.

      What people need to do is stop trusting every email connection that's made, and instead insist that every email connection comes from a listed MX.

      This is easy to do: check the MXes for the domain listed in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command (not to be confused with the "From:" header in the email message itself) and reject the connection if the IP address of the connection doesn't match one of the listed MXes for the domain. If you want to send email from a system that isn't a real MX, list it as a low priority one and block incoming SMTP traffic to that box (something anyone with any brains will be doing anyway), so that all incoming email goes only to the MXes that can handle incoming email.

      End result: it forces spammers to buy a domain (that won't last very long since it'll be blacklisted immediately if it starts sending spam), makes it easy to create useful blacklists that work, and ultimately significantly increases the costs of spamming. And finally provides a way of reliably ignoring open relays (because you can blacklist the domain associated with the open relay).

      And all of this can be done now, with no changes to SMTP required at all.

      So why are we all sitting around on our asses complaining about spam when a viable solution already exists?

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    3. Re:Eathlink does this too. by Blkdeath · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What people need to do is stop trusting every email connection that's made, and instead insist that every email connection comes from a listed MX.

      Which in itself is an RFC violation.

      End result: it forces spammers to buy a domain (that won't last very long since it'll be blacklisted immediately if it starts sending spam), makes it easy to create useful blacklists that work, and ultimately significantly increases the costs of spamming. And finally provides a way of reliably ignoring open relays (because you can blacklist the domain associated with the open relay).

      Give me a Visa card with a $2000 limit and I can own about 200 domains inside of 24 hours. Considering SPAMmers are purchasing $750k houses with the proceeds from their efforts, I'd say that's not a huge problem.

      Now consider what happens when SPAMmers start routinely issuing "MAIL FROM: <kcbrown@sysexperts.com>"

      Oh, wait, they already do that, and implementations like you suggest would only re-double their efforts. I'd rather not find myself at the wraith of people who have the capabilities to send 10 billion messages/month in my name, thanks.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    4. Re:Eathlink does this too. by benb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > reject the connection if the IP address of the
      > connection doesn't match one of the listed MXes
      > for the domain

      Wrong assumption: incoming SMTP server = outgoing SMTP server. Many large and small organizations use different machines to recieve and send mail via SMTP. In other words, you'll end up rejecting a huge (50-80?) percentage of legitimate mail.

    5. Re:Eathlink does this too. by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Give me a Visa card with a $2000 limit and I can own about 200 domains inside of 24 hours. Considering SPAMmers are purchasing $750k houses with the proceeds from their efforts, I'd say that's not a huge problem.

      The doamins aren't their only expense. Now they also have to pay for their own hosting as well, as well as for the DNS servers that will be authoritative for their domains. They won't be able to make nearly as much use of open relays because the domains associated with any open relays will be blacklisted as quickly as theirs (and the definition of an "open relay" becomes more complicated under my scheme anyway, because an open relay has to either claim that it's sending your email under its domain or it has to be listed as an MX for your domain).

      Those 200 domains aren't going to last you very long...perhaps a couple of weeks once the blacklisting mechanisms become good (and note that blacklisting can happen on a local level now, too). So that $2000 you talk about grows to $50,000 over the course of a year. That's going to eliminate a lot of spammers.

      Now consider what happens when SPAMmers start routinely issuing "MAIL FROM: <kcbrown@sysexperts.com>"

      What happens when they do that is that the system they're connecting to looks up the MXes for sysexperts.com and -- surprise -- finds out that the IP address the connection is coming from doesn't match any of the MX records for sysexperts.com...and drops the connection right then and there. It doesn't register the sysexperts.com domain in the blacklist because there's no need: it's obvious that the connection was a forgery! The purpose of the blacklist is to eliminate domains that are successfully sending spam, i.e. the ones for which the connection address matches the MX lookup but for which the payload is still spam -- the domains that either belong to the spammers or which are open relays, in other words.

      Spammers will be able to send email in your name just as they can right now, but only because the enforcement mechanism I describe operates on information from the "MAIL FROM" SMTP command and not the "From:" header. It would be possible to enforce it on the "From:" header, too, but that will cause a lot more inconvenience, since some people legitimately rely on the ability to define the "From:" header to be whatever they want.

      Now, you may be right about the economic argument, but the technique I describe will simultaneously cost spammers more money (which is always a good thing) and more time and make it easier to fight spam at the same time, because blacklists will become a lot more effective (since now you can target domains instead of dynamically-assigned IP addresses) and a lot fairer (since you won't be targeting netblocks that could contain legitimate users). To relate back to the original article, because it'll completely eliminate the need to block IP addresses and will thus drastically reduce the need for ISPs to block SMTP (inbound or outbound).

      By the way, I think it's ridiculous for ISPs to be blocking SMTP when they could easily limit the number of outbound SMTP connections originating from any of their IP addresses to something low enough to make spam impractical but high enough for legitimate use.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  7. If you want to send mail... by Ageless · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you want to send mail to AOL you just need to use something different than DSL. No big deal. May I suggest AOL/Time Warner Road Runner Cable Modem Service?

    Hermm....

    1. Re:If you want to send mail... by moonbender · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Those no-server TOS are a joke, anyway. I mean, what qualifies as a server? Apache probably does. Does an Apache modified to only allow access to a small number of people? Does a similarily restricted ftpd? Okay, so how about ICQ? It's a client to the ICQ network, but it's kind of a hybrid, as it responds to requests of other clients, as well. IRC/DCC? Most/All of the P2P programs are client/server hybrids.
      What about game servers - I can't host a match of Age Of Kings for my friends?

      So, really, those TOS are a joke. A bit OT, all of this, I guess.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  8. this isn't new by ejaw5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I found out about this issue few months after i got my DSL connected almost a year ago. Used to be I'd use sendmail to send email out, and worked great since I could put my email address (which was defined through a domain name email forward) in the reply-to field. then, one day i get a message from AOL claiming I'm running an open mail relay, or using a "banned" IP. Got me worried a little bit, but I found out the real reason after i got a friend to nmap my box

    --

    $cat /dev/random > Sig
  9. It's their network. by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If AOL doesn't want to accept your mail, that's their choice. It's their network, and their mail servers. Of course, when AOL customers find that they can't receive any email, AOL might lose business.

    Like all other spam blocking attempts, there will be collateral damage. They try to keep their customers happy, and the market decides if they succeeded.

    1. Re:It's their network. by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but have they told their subscribers?

      You don't know you haven't got what you didn't get.

  10. Only dynamically assigned IP addresses by Dynastar454 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be pointed out that AOL isn't blocking "All DSL" MTAs but those that have dynamically assigned IP addresses. On one hand, this is a stinky, no-good, rotten thing for them to do. On the other hand, the elitest in me says "go get a real DSL connection if you're going to run your own MTA." :-) But really, I know it's not an option for some, and this move by AOL is pathetic.

    --


    Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
    1. Re:Only dynamically assigned IP addresses by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Define "dynamically assigned" in the context of DSL.
      I have a 'business' dsl package. My IPs are static to my account, but they are assigned dynamically to the router. Will AOL know the difference between my email server, and some dhcp dsl users? Doubtful.

  11. Good move by Adnans · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you have DSL you should still use your upstream SMTP server for outgoing mail. About 90% of incoming SPAM on my box originates from Windows boxes on DSL lines with open relays. I've set up exim to ignore all incoming SMTP calls from dsl hosts (*.dsl.*) and also to block hosts without proper reverse-DNS. These 2 simple steps take care in blocking a huuuge quantity of incoming SPAM at the doorstep...It's not fullproof, but it helps a great deal.

    -adnans

    --
    "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Good move by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. I pay for connectivity and know what I'm doing, and run my own SMTP server. If you don't want my email, you certainly don't have to accept it, but I'll run my own anyway, and the ignorant among you can just not communicate with me.

    2. Re:Good move by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting
      you should still use your upstream SMTP server for outgoing mail
      And what if your upstream provider is unreliable. Back when I had cablemodem with AT&T@Home, the service was so bad I swore to never rely on anyone else for email ever again. Emails sent through their servers had a habit of disappearing or taking months (yes, I said months) to finally arrive at their destination. Complaints resulted in the boilerplate response of "email service is for entertainment purposes only". For broadband in my area I can choose cablemodem or dsl. To get a static ip on dsl requires a jump in the monthly payment that I honestly can't afford at the moment (I'm an unemployed tech worker in the Bay Area, do the math). The rare contract work that I am getting requires email I can trust.
      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    3. Re:Good move by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 4, Informative

      Verifying reverse-DNS isn't a terribly good idea... you're blocking mail comming from sites that do virtual hosting. In the olden days of one-to-one mapping of hostname and IP, it was a smart move. Now, when a single box can host hundred domains or more, filtering out connections from domains without reverse-DNS is going to cause more problems than it solves.

      SoupIsGood Food

    4. Re:Good move by SWroclawski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I currently don't have mod points or you and others who have said the same thing would be modded up.

      There's no RFC that says you have to accept mail from *everyone*. You're free to bounce mail to whomever you like.

      As to why this is an effective technique:

      1) Most of these "home servers" don't have a PTR record at all.

      2) Those that do, almost NEVER have one pointing to the domain they claim to be recieving for.

      3) All these residential users should be using their ISP as a relay. That's what the ISP is there for.

      4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue.

      I'm generally against crippling services on the ISP end, but I've even thought that maybe it's high time that ISPs do what AOL does, and block outbound port 25. Incomming is another story, but as the parent and I have pointed out- the residential users should be using their ISP's mail servers as relay hosts.

      - Serge Wroclawski

    5. Re:Good move by wbattestilli · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My ISP is not sufficiently reliable to use their mail servers. This is why I run my own. They have a lousy uptime and are vulnerable to the email worm of the week.

      I also cannot switch providers because my provider has a local broadband monopoly.

      I am neither ignorant or a spammer. I simply would like to have a server that is predictible.

    6. Re:Good move by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Informative
      All these residential users should be using their ISP as a relay. That's what the ISP is there for.

      I have Verizon DSL. Their relay won't let me send mail with any return address other than @verizon.net. That's completely useless, so I don't use it. Are you honestly saying that all broadband customers should restrict their email addresses to those assigned by their bandwidth providers?

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    7. Re:Good move by doorbot.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) Most of these "home servers" don't have a PTR record at all.
      2) Those that do, almost NEVER have one pointing to the domain they claim to be recieving for.


      Maybe because that would cost me even more money, and I don't see the need to pay for that, when all I really need is a static IP. If you want to pay for it, though, drop me an email (if you can).

      3) All these residential users should be using their ISP as a relay. That's what the ISP is there for.

      Except I have to pay for this service too. If I want to host my own domain, I can do it with Linux and an MTA. I don't need to rely on Pacific Bell, and more importantly I don't need to pay them extra for a service I can provide on my own.

      4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue.

      Pacific Bell's mail servers have been blacklisted in the past, thanks to these spammers. My IP, however, has never been blacklisted. If I tried to relay out through my ISP's SMTP server, I would have a hard time delivering my email.

      I agree with your points, but in reality it is a flawed plan. All it takes is one spammer to get an ISP's mail server blacklisted (and I think we all know how quickly the ISPs react to get themselves removed from the lists). At least with my DSL line, as long as I am (apparently now it's "was") a good citizen, I could send mail to whomever I wanted.

      If it comes down to me relaying through my ISP, I'll probably bounce through the server at work. Unfortunately, not everyone has that option.

    8. Re:Good move by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? You just pay for connectivity? Who is your provider? I need to switch!

      Of course, if you mean you didn't read your TOS and only THINK you are playing just for connectivity, then never mind.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    9. Re:Good move by Mastoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      I have Verizon DSL. Their relay won't let me send mail with any return address other than @verizon.net. That's completely useless, so I don't use it.

      True. In fact, Verizon requires that you both use a From address for a domain that they host (such as bellatlantic.net or verizon.net, or a domain you pay them to host) and authenticate with their outgoing relay.

      However, for what it's worth, you can put whatever you want as a Reply-To.

      --
      I had an argument...with the person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when I'll learn --Linus
    10. Re:Good move by xdroop · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue.

      Right, I'll bite.

      Let's pretend I am an idiot who has a cable modem. And let's pretend that said cable modem issues an IP within the verboten rage. And now let's pretend that I have my own email domain completely unrelated to that of my ISP's, and that I use sendmail to send mail out.

      With me so far?

      Now, let's pretend that said ISP has implemented authentication requirements -- in other words, I must identify myself with a SMTP AUTH username and password before my ISP's server will accept my outbound mail.

      So. How do I configure my sendmail so that it uses my ISP's server as a relay (SMARTHOST definition) but feeds it the magic username and password first?...

      Any ideas?

      --
      you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
    11. Re:Good move by analog_line · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.

      I have several customers who have Verizon DSL, but have domains hosted elsewhere, with mail hosted elsewhere, without authenticated SMTP relay. I would imagine, while certianly doing this to decrease their spam problem, that there's some sort of collusion (spoken or unspoken) industry wide to try and force ISP customers to use their bandwidth provider's services, hence making them more money.

  12. "Residential" DSL meaning what, exactly? by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Services like Verizon, that use DHCP and/or PPPoE and already have a "no servers" policy? What's the criteria, here??? It will be interesting to see how AOL differentiates "residential" DSL from other types of DSL.

    I use SpeakEasy DSL via Covad. This service is technically residential, because my servers are sitting in my house. But I have a legitimate domain, and static IPs on my servers. However, reverse DNS lookups return "dslwww-xxx-yyy-zzz.phl.yadayadayada," NOT my registered domain name.

    I just successfully sent myself a test message from my domain mail to my AOL account, so I'm not being blocked yet. I guess I'll start sending a test message once or twice a day to make sure it still works, until AOL clarifies their policy. And if I do get blocked, there's gonna be some hell raised about it. My servers are locked down tight and laways have been. Shutting out all DSL-hosted mailservers to keep out spam is like burning your house down to keep it from being burglarized.

    ~Philly

  13. This didn't start April 10th ... by dougmc · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first I noticed it was March 27th (and I don't email my dad @ AOL that often, so it probably happened even before that ...)

    The original message was received at Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:35:36 -0600
    from dougmc@localhost

    ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mailin-03.mx.aol.com.:
    550-The IP address you're using to connect to AOL is either open to the
    550-free relaying of e-mail, is serving as an open proxy, or is a dynamic
    550-(residential) IP address. AOL cannot accept further e-mail
    550-transactions from your server until either your server is closed to free
    550-relaying/proxy, or your ISP removes your IP address from their list of
    550-dynamic IP addresses. For additional information, please visit
    550 http://postmaster.info.aol.com. ... while talking to mailin-04.mx.aol.com.:

  14. I have a great idea for AOL! by stj · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about if AOL bans all of the e-mail traffic - in and out of their domain? Wouldn't that be great? They could even actually ban telnet, http, and ftp, too. And later all possible ports. In the end, they can even earn some money by selling their edge routers ;-)

    --
    iThink iHate iMod
  15. Ramblings on a Pseudo-Internet-Network by m_evanchik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess this is sort of like the New York branch post offices not delivering mail from Florida, because that's where a lot of junk mail originates from.

    I have a fairly nasty conspiracy theory on why AOL and Comcast are cooperating on this. By shutting out the innovative do-it-yourselfers on the Internet from their network, they squelch potential competition from their "value-added" services.

    The next step might be to block web servers that don't originate from big corporate server farms. After all, who knows what could be on those independent things but kiddy porn and terrorist training instructions?

    The irony is that the great mass of obtrusive commercialism on the Internet originates on the corporate, big-player side. AOL was the innovator in turning the WWW into a virtual shopping mall.

    You would like to think, however that this will backfire on them, as customers look to alternatives to their increasingly sanitized pseudo-Internet network.

    And how does one fool their IP filters anyway? It makes one want to "spam" everyone of AOL's customers with a protected-from-legal-prohibition-because-it-is-not -commercial-speech protest email.

  16. Open Proxy Madness by Akai · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a network engineer of a DSL and T1 only ISP (we have dialup but only for traveling DSL/T1 customers) I can let you know that this will probably stop oodles of spam.

    The latest spammer tactic is not to seek out open relays, but open windows proxies, and from there they can initial outbound SMTP connections to legit SMTP servers and send spam.

    Already a large number of dialup providers will only allow you to send through their mail server, and a larger number of ISPs user the DUN RBL to block email directly from dialup pools.

    This is just more of the same. Your ISP should provide you with SMTP service, use them as a smart host even if you're running your own SMTP server, so it'll offload the requeing/etc from your box to theirs.

    DSL and Cable are the new dialup, and should be treated as such, a place where the majority of the customers are clueless idiots who ruin the party for the smart people.

    Several ISPs are starting to scan mail servers sending them mail for open proxy/open relay before accepting the mails, expect to see this practive and AOL's solution spread to most ISPs in the near future.

    If you want to run a real mail server, perhaps you should get a real internet conenction, like Colocation or T1.

    --
    Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
  17. Trivial fix by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative
    In /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:

    define(`SMART_HOST',`smtp.server.of.you.isp')
  18. Umm.. by doofsmack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot's RFC-ignorant too.. Bounces abuse@ emails.

  19. You want these rights for *YOUR* MTA, right? by Cirkit · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd expect users of RBLs (see http://www.spews.org) and certainly the denizens of NANAE to argue that they have the right to refuse to receive email from anyone, for any reason, since that mailserver is private property.

    It can be used in ways you like (refusing emails from Verizon's corporate HQ because they refuse to kick their spammers) or in ways you don't like (making it more difficult to send outgoing mail), but I don't see how you can reasonably kick and scream against one and not the other.

    Actually, several providers have been refusing email from dial-up pools for a year or more, which is what caused me to decide that I would need to send outbound email through my ISP. IIRC, attbi refused email from my server on my ISDN line over a year ago.

    The solution isn't difficult - go dig around on your ISP's website (or call them) and figure out the mailserver that you'd be using if you WEREN'T running your own MTA. Set your mail server to relay outbound emails through them. (See your man pages - it isn't difficult.) There's NO way your ISP's mailserver is going to refuse to accept your email, since if they did, no one not running an MTA could get email out. Sure, you'll have an extra line of headers in your outbound email, but it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Was the location of your mail server a secret anyway?

    Of course, if your ISP is a notorious hoster of spammers, you're going to need to find a new ISP. You didn't really want to support those spammers anyway, did you?

  20. AOL's triage spam solution: block email from DSL by markwelch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Wow, perhaps this explains the huge upsurge in the number of non-received emails. People in my Rotary club are baffled that I am not responding to their emails, and it certainly seems to be all the AOL folks. Are they rejecting emails, or blackholing them?

    I run my own mail server on a "business DSL" connection with a static IP address, but it runs to my home and I doubt there is any genuine distinction between "residential" and "business" DSL lines. I run my own server, of course, so that I can have a fairly powerful set of spam filters at the server side, in addition to a complex set of client-side spam filters -- all because I receive hundreds of spam emails per day, including dozens that I can identify as coming from AOL-owned servers.

    I assume that AOL has only disabled receipt of email from DSL lines, and continues to send its customers' spam to folks like me. It's hard to know, since my filters already reject more than 98% of incoming email delivery attempts.

    Let's at least try to be fair to AOL: they are just like the rest of us, forced to seek out triage solutions to the increasingly aggressive strategies used by spammers. Until a new structure is widely adopted for exchange of email (something that allows for true source verification and financial compensation for abuse), triage is the only solution that will work. Hence I block nearly all email from earthlink servers and customers, as well as juno.com and HUNDREDs of other domain names and IP addresses.

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  21. Privatized mail by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The United States Postal Service has announced it will stop delivering
    any mail from Florida, due to the large number of mail-order scams originating from that state


    Don't laugh too hard on that one, there are schemes in place of trying to privatize and eliminate the whole of the US mail system including first class postage. While it might be neat to have all your mail sent by one company like UPS and while the post office does need to get its act together ASAP, my concern is that rural areas would by stuck with only one greedy private company as their only means of communication (thus making it expensive to send or recieve mail at all). Remember, the postal system in the US is a time-honored tradition that has been the envy and model for the rest of the planet. It is also in good working order, thus if AOL chooses not to accept e-mail anymore, why not just bombard them with snail mail? We could also return their bloody disks right back to them while we're at it. Maybe after they get several hundred thousand they'll get the hint.

    And if you think the AOL-Time-Warner lawyers will allow their most lucrative domain to be taken from them then I have to disagree. I figure they've already got a loophole in the fine print somewhere that is as easily exploited as the pictures of children for those old Sally Struthers commercials (the ones where the kids keep starving but she kept growing). There hsa to be some reason behind this that is not yet shared, hopefully their decision has a more rational basis than some of the arguments for privatizing the US postal system.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:Privatized mail by LamerX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dont' understand why everyone is so down on the USPS. I've never seen packages arrive late. My mail, which sits out in an unlocked box on the street, never gets messed with, it always arrives at its destination, and it seems to get there pretty quick. I mean, which method do you notice EVERY company sends out bills? I've never seen anyone send bills via UPS or FedEx, even though according to many people the USPS sucks....

    2. Re:Privatized mail by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The can't tweak it too hard.

      According to the constitution, by law Congress must provide a postal system. Short of a constitutional ademendment, they are just a lawsuit away from any "reform" ideas being thrown out.

      And frankly our postal system is a bargain. Try sending 2 oz letter 3500 miles for $0.36 in any other country in the world.

      Now if you only had a telephone and a broadband service like that...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Privatized mail by kaszeta · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I dont' understand why everyone is so down on the USPS

      I used to like the USPS, then I moved someplace that isn't served by the USPS. While I live in a somewhat rural environment, my town has over 5000 residents, but only 1 part-time mail carrier (and no plans to *ever* get another according to the local postmaster), so if you aren't on the one street that's on the route, you don't get mail. They canceled rural route service years ago. And they ran out of PO boxes back in 2000, and again, they don't plan on ever getting any more of them. And they think there is nothing wrong...

      On a related note, I hate businesses that can't understand that my PO Box is my *only* USPS-servicable address, businesses that insist on sending correspondence to my shipping address instead of my billing address, and rebates that don't accept PO Boxes.

    4. Re:Privatized mail by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 3, Informative

      And frankly our postal system is a bargain. Try sending 2 oz letter 3500 miles for $0.36 in any other country in the world.

      48 cents in Canada, which is about 31 US cents at current exchange rates.

      Try again.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  22. Re:About Time by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    30% of the spam that comes in to our mailserver is from residential dsl ip's.

    50% of the spam I receives has an odd number of letters in the domain name,
    but I wouldn't consider filtering based on that.
    A 70% false negative rate is pretty meaningless without knowing the false positive rate as well.
    What percentage of your non-spam email comes from dsl ip's?


    If you are dial up or home dsl you should not be talking diectly to smtp servers anyway you should be sending mail through your provider.


    Sounds like a load of claptrap to me.
    Care to cite an RFC that suggests such a thing?
    How about a good network reason why email should be relayed instead of sent directly?

    -- this is not a .sig
  23. Average /. AOL reply by Rai · · Score: 3, Funny

    How to post a negative AOL reply on Slashdot.org just like a veteran /.er.

    1. Start off by naming the previous number of times AOL has done something you dislike, noting that this particular incident is "the worst yet."

    2. State your greivances about the topic. Explain, in near-irrevelant detail, how this will negatively effect you and others.

    3. Throw random arguments in about how non-AOL services are far superior to AOL services.

    4. Also imply that anyone who still uses AOL must be of inferior intellect that yourself.

    5. Notate the sudden revelation that you don't use the services of AOL (in fact, can't recall any time at which you did use AOL) and, if you did, you and anyone else using AOL probably deserves the a forehand mentioned greviance and whatever similar issues they get.

    6. Close with witty remark about poor service and/or "AOHell" reference and offer cliche signature of either "Step 1. AOL reference, Step 2. (blank), 3. Profit!" or "All your base..." adaption.

    IN RUSSIA, AVERAGE AOL REPLY WRITES YOU!

  24. What a Terrific Idea... by cribcage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I strongly recommend that as a compensatory measure, non-AOL MTAs be configured to deny all incoming mail from AOL's domain."
    Yeah...because when a big corporation does something wrong, we should exact revenge upon all of its customers.

    That's very mature. Particularly in the case of AOL, which services the vast majority of under-educated internet users. You'll fuck up all of their personal email communications, and they won't have the first clue why.

    Brilliant solution.

    crib

    --

    Please don't read my journal
    1. Re:What a Terrific Idea... by Squidgee · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah...because when a big corporation does something wrong, we should exact revenge upon all of its customers.

      Actually, we should; it's called putting pressure on the corporation. If we were to pressure the corp, then they'll give in if enough users are f-ed up.

  25. Re:I would say.... by Lonath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There has to be some other underlying reason to move to block e-mail for this one group of internet users,

    <tin-foil-hat>Does any part of AOLTW compete with DSL, like umm cable modems maybe? </tin-foil-hat>

  26. No, it's NOT a good move, censors lists and boards by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you have DSL you should still use your upstream SMTP server for outgoing mail.

    If I did that, I'd be accused of spamming by my ISP, since I run a VERY high volume mailing list. We have approximately 12 lists; the bigest list has 1,500 subscribers and gets about 100 emails a DAY. We have another major list that's about 500 people and similar volume.

    About 90% of incoming SPAM on my box originates from Windows boxes on DSL lines with open relays.

    99% of MY spam comes from chinese and eastern european ISPs that don't give a crap what people do with their internet connections. The solution is not blacklisting DSL and cable connections(because, among other things, it's not easy to switch, unlike dialup.) The solution is cutting off bad ISPs from backbones...but that's not likely to happen any time soon, because the backbone providers don't give a crap- every packet is money in their pocket, regardless of what kind of packet it is.

    And guess what? If you are getting lots of spam from DSL/Cable users, it's really easy to solve. Report it. If there's a report of spam, the ISP disconnects the customer until they fix it. Imagine how fast people will learn to keep their machine clean if their internet connection goes down. ISPs will whine about the work, but, gee, that's like the gas station attendant whining about having to give directions to people all the time. Comes with the territory, bub.

    It's ignorant people like you(who think "since -I- don't need to send mail directly, neither does anyone else!") that cause people like me grief.

    We get next to NO money from subscribers to pay for costs- $5 donations here and there. DSL and Cable offer a nice, cheap way to host a mailing list, or a webboard; we don't use very much bandwidth at all, and occasional hiccups aren't a problem, especially given the design of SMTP; if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. Commercial DSL is just less down bandwidth, slightly more up bandwidth, a 'real' static IP instead of a DHCP-assigned address that basically never changes...and a HELL of a lot more expensive. Oh, and instead of telling you to go screw yourself when you scream at them for your line being down, they -politely- tell you there's nothing they can do(and, by the way, -please- go screw yourself.)

    Luckily, we're sucking bandwidth off a hosting company that has graciously allowed the box to sit off their network- but if they tank, we'll be screwed- commercial hosting runs about $90+ or more, and our box isn't rackmountable, so there's another $25-50/mo.

    Slowly but surely, the media companies are doing their best to squeeze out other sources of competition- the little guys. Check your Terms of Service/Acceptable Use Policy. My home connection(ATTBI, now Comcast) has banned "messageboards and mailing lists" for years, along with FTP, web, mail, IRC...and specifically states it's an "entertainment service", and I am a "consumer" of that service- ie, sit down, shut up, and be a good little consumer of mass web media. How dare you produce your OWN media...

  27. I AM MAD AS HELL ABOUT THIS by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Having zero background information on this topic, I am prepared to make an indignant response to AOL's clear violation of YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE! AOL has blatantly violated YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE by deciding not to accept mail from dial-up and residential DSL IP addresses! Dammit, I am sick and tired of providers who think they have the right to do what they want with servers and pipes that they pay for! They are obviously violating my right to free speech by censoring me with their heavyhanded spam-fighting measures! They are probably going to use the DMCA to defend this decision! My guess is the RIAA is behind all this! If we don't all get up in arms about this blatant violation of YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE, next thing you know there will be an AOL camera in your TOASTER OVEN! You will have to ask AOL permission to GO TO THE BATHROOM!

  28. No, you did not by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no way to Spam from AOL/Yahoo or Hotmail. It's physically impossible for a common user to do it.

    What is possible to do to forge a 'from' address in an email header. Look again at the emails you have in your spam bucket and look at the recived-from: header. I'll bet you $100 they didn't come from anywhere with a '.yahoo.com' at the end.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  29. Excellent point by KMSelf · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hadn't considered that, but they've got a $1 billion interest in just that area.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  30. Re:ummmm... by darkonc · · Score: 5, Informative
    One thing that you can do is foreward your email through your ISP. If you're using Sendmail this is done with the smarthost entry:
    # "Smart" relay host (may be null)
    DSmail.MyISP.net
    would forward youre spam (er, email) through the box mail.myISP.net . Most ISPs have a designated server that will allow email forewarding from anybody in their network space.
    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  31. Selective relaying with sendmail by Piquan · · Score: 4, Informative

    My ISP has not shown that its servers are reliable. I like to be able to use mailq to see what's backed up. I'd also like to be able to use my own mailer's parameters for bounces. There's lots of reasons to prefer to use your own mailer instead of your ISP's, even if you technically could use your ISP's. But now, you'll want to relay through your ISP for all the mail that AOL won't accept, while sticking to your own SMTP services for everything else. That's what this document is for.

    I encourage people to write corresponding documents for other MTAs. Also, some people can only send mail through their ISP with their ISP-assigned username. It's possible to configure sendmail to adapt AOL-bound mail to have the ISP-assigned sender. That is not discussed in this document; email me if you need it, and I'll write a followup post.

    HOWTO: Configuring Sendmail to use your ISP's relay for AOL

    This uses the sendmail mailertable feature. The mailertable feature allows you to specify the mailer and relay parameters for individual domains. That's exactly what we need here.

    1. First, you'll need mailertable support in your sendmail config. Grep your sendmail.cf for the string "Id: mailertable.m4". If it's in there, you've got it and can skip the next step.
    2. Since you don't have mailertable support, you'll need to add the following line to your .mc file:
      FEATURE(mailertable, `hash -o /etc/mail/mailertable')
      Note that the first quote is a backquote! After you do this, you'll need to rebuild your sendmail.cf file. (On FreeBSD, you can just run 'make' in /etc/mail to do this. You can also use the following command (it's on one line):
      m4 -D_CF_DIR_=/path/to/sendmail/cf/ /path/to/sendmail/cf/m4/cf.m4 sendmail.mc > sendmail.cf
      You'll need to put sendmail.cf in its proper place, usually /etc/mail but sometimes /etc or elsewhere.
    3. Create a file /etc/mail/mailertable. In it, add lines like the following:
      aol.com esmtp:relay.my-isp.net
      earthlink.net esmtp:relay.my-isp.net
      Fill in relay.my-isp.net with your ISP's relay hostname.
    4. Rebuild the mailertable file. On FreeBSD, you can just run 'make' in /etc/mail to do this. You can also use the following command:
      makemap hash mailertable.db < mailertable
    5. Restart sendmail. On FreeBSD, you can just run 'make restart' in /etc/mail. Other OS's may vary.

    Remember that some ISPs may require you to use your ISP-assigned email address to relay through them. This won't help with that, but there's easy solutions for it. (This sort of thing is where Sendmail rocks.) Email me if you need it, and I'll post a followup.

  32. Re:This is a good thing by bourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But having your own SMTP server doesn't provide any functionality that you can't get from Comcast at base price anyway.

    Actually, it provides three bits of functionality:

    • Performance (less stupid delays)
    • Reliability (less insanely stupid delays)
    • Intelligent anti-spam, based on more complex thinking than "Hell, let's just block a /8."

    This move by AOL is a good thing.

    No, actually, it's a fucking bad thing. But you won't realize it until the day that you want to send your friend on MSN email but can't, and neither of you can talk to your parents who are on AOLMail, both of which are playing games to close their protocols to make sure that GnuMail can't play.

    Providing an open replacement for SMTP that has the authentication and accountability that SMTP is sorely lacking would be a good thing. Segregating the Internet address space into ghettoes is not.

  33. Re:About Time by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    30% of the spam that comes in to our mailserver is from residential dsl ip's.

    Yet another reason to choose Speakeasy. I have a static IP and I am not blocked by AOL (already tried).

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  34. Funny... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My MTAs have been set up to blackhole AOL mail (on a whitelist basis) since about 1997 or 98 :-). I had almost forgotten... At that time, I was getting a heap of spam from their domains, and as I'm in Australia and AOL doesn't have a significant coverage here it's pretty safe from false positives.

  35. Re:About Time by valdis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Never invited 15 friends to a barbeque?

    Never tried to announce a new baby to more than 10 people?

    Never sent out "I'm moving, my new snail mail address is..."?

    I guess if you don't have more than 10 friends, you'd never need to bcc more than 10 people. But if that's the case, I feel sorry for you.

  36. More reasons why this is necessary: by scrain · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I worked in AOL's mail and anti-spam groups for 5 years, ending back about a 2 years ago. I still keep in touch with the people back there, and I have a good idea what's up, as I still work in the anti-spam 'industry'.

    Not that anyone will see this, as it's on the second page of comments...

    A massive percentage of spam (well over 50%) comes from compromised windows boxes running either trojan software to open ports for spammers to proxy through, software like AnalogX that does the same, or just users who somehow manage to set up a proxy that's open to the world. There's also a big problem with a LOT of the DSL hardware on the market, that allows people to proxy through it transparently, via use of a security hole. Check Bugtraq if you want to find details.

    These broadband connections are where the spammers are headed for anonymity. Yeah, sure, there's still a bunch of big-time professional spammers out there who spam away from their often-moving netblocks. That bunch isn't so hard to keep up with.

    There's also the problem of Klez and other SMTP aware worms that busily want to send you lots of infected mail. Sure, *nix users don't really care about that, but companies like AOL, with a crapload of less-than-savvy users have to.

    It's been this way for 56k dialups for about 3 years or so... but the noise about that only lasted a few weeks, much like this will. If your DSL company can't support your needs, vote with your feet! Switch your service to one that can. If Verizon can offer you service, you can pretty much bet that Covad can too.

    (shameless plug: Check out lmi.net for that stuff.. small companies make for better service, and if you need the medium-sized company feel, go with Speakeasy.)

    So what if you have a contract... if they can't get your mail to AOL with the right domain, it sounds like grounds to break it to me. =)

  37. We did this to ourselves by EvilAlien · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Thats right, its not just DSL as the article title suggests. Its broadband. You know what broadband is, its a high-speed network of misconfigured proxies, infected Windoze boxes, and Denial of Service agents.

    IMO too much time is spent ranting about how Tha Man is keeping the $30/mo broadband user down by not allowing the minority who know how to run a secure server to use their residential line as a commercial line. We should be putting a hell of a lot more energy bitching about the masses of clueless users who randomly click on any email attachment they get, setup their P2P apps in slut-mode, and otherwise connect to the Internet in such a way that they become:

    1. just another hop for viruses to propagate through
    2. just another misconfigured AnalogX proxy or Lovgate infected SMTP/NNTP open relay
    3. just another DDoS drone host
    Its sad, but the majority of broadband users have forced this action. If people understood the concepts of due diligence and responsibility we wouldn't have David Ritz and others spending huge amounts of time battling USENET spam, ISPs getting slammed with DoS all the time (and I mean that litterally), and spam gangs doing automated scans of broadband networks for open relays so they can spread their email polution.

    Its a myth that spam only comes from networks in Asia that don't give a damn. It comes from Ma and Pa's Windows 98 box that got infected with one of several variants of Lovgate and helps spam the planet, all from their speedy little DSL/cable connection.

    Before the /. community jumps down AOL's throat at this carpet-bomb tactic, we need to realize that it is a business response to the realities of security on broadband networks. If users took responsibility for their connections and had good firewalls, anti-virus and intelligent email practices then this problem probably wouldn't exist.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'