Slashdot Mirror


AOL Blocks Telstra Bigpond Mail

frodmann writes "Australian IT reports here that AOL has been blocking email from Telstra bigpond mail accounts. This is possibly attributed to AOL's new white list policy as reported earlier on Slashdot. Although this article is a few days old I can verify that this is still happening. (For those outside of Australia, Telstra is one of our largest ISPs.)"

11 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Blocking spam is good... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..but this sort of action is a hurting inocent third part (ie; the other, legitimate users of mailservers in question).

    It would be like stopping to deliver snailmail from another city / nation, just because someone living there sends junkmail to your city / nation. Is this something we want?

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    1. Re:Blocking spam is good... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't figure out why AOL doesn't stop developing new useless content and start developing email filters that really work. They have the largest collection of junk-mail EVER to run statistical analysis on. If all they can come up with is "block mail from X server", they suck. =P

    2. Re:Blocking spam is good... by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just a quick question. Not a troll, but a comparison of real work tactics that are similar. Is everyone in Syria or Cuba bad? Does everyone support communism or harbor terrorist cells? So why does everyone get an embargo against them? It's the same thing. It forces the government (ISP) to clean up their act by affecting their citizens (users). Maybe Telstra will start policing their users better to prevent spamming? Who knows.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
  2. AOL is just going to strangle itself... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More and more, people are realizing that E-Mail and 'The Internet' are not services offered by AOL. They're realizing that AOL does not "own" the internet, and they're realizing that most companies don't pay AOL to host their content.

    It's tough to explain to people what the internet is. AOL was a great simplification tool, in the "early days" of public access - you connect, and everything's set up for you.

    Now, millions who use the internet do so from work, with their work providing the connection and their work providing their email address. What's going to happen when AOL customers get told that they can't communicate with the "outside" anymore? Easy - they shut off their AOL subscription, because it becomes meaningless. Instead of simplifying their lives, it starts hampering them.

    I find it funny that AOL has adopted this policy, only because their market share has so dramatically decreaesd in the last few years. Sure, lots of people use AOL instant messenger, but if AOL starts charging for that, people will switch - I guarrentee it.

    These millions of people using Kazaa, etc.? They all realize that AOL isn't providing that content. Blocking (whitelisting) email makes the fact that AOL doesn't provide the internet *extremely salient* to AOL customers: Which is, imho, a horrible, horrible business move.

    America Online: So easy to overlook, no wonder it's gone bankrupt.

    1. Re:AOL is just going to strangle itself... by analog_line · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You bring up points, and while they're valid on their face, they don't actually apply to AOL.

      AOL is doing this precisely because of customer demand. Not demand of the high end user, but the demand from parents and other ease-of-use types. The people that own most of the companies I do consulting for also will have me set up their home networks, and almost all of them subscribe to AOL, because they're the best of a bad bunch in effectively filtering porn spam before it gets to the e-mail box of their little kids' AOL screen name. That's the single biggest request I get, is looking for software that will stop their kids from getting porn spam e-mail.

      They don't care about Kazaa (their kids probably do, but they're not paying for the connection). They don't care if AOL owns the Internet. They just want some kind of relatively safe way for their kids to have an e-mail address they can give to their friends and have grandma and the family e-mail without having to delete all the porn spam themselves, by hand, before letting their kids sit in front of the computer.

      These are not luddites. They may be technophobes themselves, but they want their kids to learn this stuff. However, they realize that the Internet is NOT a happy go lucky friendly place. Smart parents don't let their kids play in the street, and letting your kids play on an unmonitored, unfiltered cable/DSL connection is pretty much the equivalent. Parents want a nice neighborhood. They WANT AOL to work right. Yeah, it sucks a lot, but in most of their minds, it's a lot better than the alternative, and they're probably right. These people don't have the time to learn all the technology and skills needed to filter the raw Internet on their own. Most of the time AOL does the job well enough for their needs, and that's why I tend to recommend it for them.

      Whitelisting is the ONLY way AOL and anyone else, for that matter, is ever going to get a handle on the spam problem without chucking SMTP altogether. It may make things harder, and may mean I have to start moving my clients away from AOL if they can't e-mail their kids from work if AOL just permablocks their work mail servers for the gods know what reason, but the practice of whitelisting is a GOOD THING. I can only hope more and more people start following AOL's example. Trust is the ONLY commodity in information security, whether in encryption, perimeter defenses, or spam prevention. Allowing people whom you do not trust to message you with the same freedom as those you do trust means you're going to be getting a lot of crap you don't want.

  3. Blocking by rf0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I applaud AOL for trying to stop spam, cuting off a large ISP is just a bit overkill. I mean there are better ways such as tagging email though of as spam and letting the end user deleting them if wanted and only dumping them only if you are sure its spam.

    Some IP blocks are nothing but spam so they are fine to block but you shouldn't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut

    Rus

  4. They Should Be Blocked by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    BigPond was most vulnerable to users running their own open relay mail servers via connections to the ISP

    These days open relay mail servers are just plain irresponsible. Maybe 99% of the users are responsible people, but the remaining 1% are a plague on what is otherwise a wonderful achievement. We just can't afford these open relays and if it takes major ISP's like AOL to start blocking large swaths of them to end this, more power to them!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm not particularly surprised that this happened, seeing as how Telstra was almost blocked from Usenet not long ago. Fortunately for Telstra users, it seems to be trying to do something about it.

    Their only observable action was to remove the abuse@bigpond.com complaints address. The sooner Telstra gets seriously LARTed, the better.

  6. Yeah, well... by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not build some of their own sea lines, then? I'd bet a private AU company could probably afford, and profit from a huge pipe to Japan, or even the US. But would they be allowed to make money with Telstra around?

    Also, wouldn't it make sense for them to allow unlimited in-country bandwidth while capping international traffic? At my school they have an outbound cap at 200 megs a day, but you can send as much as you want on campus.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  7. Re:Whitelist is the only solution by spacefight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This tool is crap:
    This program (Active Spam Killer, or ASK for short) takes an "Active" approach in solving the problem: Everytime an email is received, a message is sent back to the sender asking for confirmation. If that sender does not confirm the message, it remains queued for delivery. If the sender confirms, the message is delivered and removed from the queue. The "confirmed" senders will be added to your "whitelist" and will never be sent another confirmation. Messages from these emails will always be delivered immediately . You can also specify an "ignorelist" for emails that should be always ignored and a "blacklist" that will cause a nastygram to be sent back to the sender everytime an email is received.

    So how can automated mailing systems such as airline reservation confirmations and such stuff do this confirmation? My point is: whitelisting does not help at all. What if a spammer uses widely used whitelisted addresses such as newsletter From: addresses? Whitelisting does not help - I do not want people have to send mail back for confirmation - it tripples the traffic for one email by the way.

  8. Sysadmins: Block AOL SMTP by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Block inbound SMTP from AOL. Set a cutoff date, nofity all of your users, and stand firm. The further they get down this path the more accepted this practice will become. Once this practice becomes accepted, it is entirely likely that other protocols will begin being blocked for other reasons (suppose the RIAA suggests that AOL block all connections to non-commercial HTTP servers to avoid piracy liability).

    It is not unreasonable to see this as the first step in the stratification of the Internet into corporate sanctioned, generally accessible servers and cordoned-off slums. This is every bit as dangerous, if not more so, than government censorship.

    Note: it will anger your users. I know, because it angered my users. The biggest problem was that they did not understand why. I've posted a FAQ to address their most common questions.

    If we give an inch now, later they will take a yard. Better to endure a little pain now than to try to stand against the tide in a year or two.