Slashdot Mirror
Verizon.net Finally Moving Email To Port 587
The Washington Post's Security Fix blog is reporting that Verizon, long identified as the largest ISP source of spam, is moving to require use of the submission port, 587, in outbound mail — and thus to require authentication. While spammers may still be able to relay spam through zombies in Verizon's network, if the victims let their mail clients remember their authentication credentials, at least the zombies will be easily identifiable. Verizon pledges to clean up their zombie problem quickly. We'll see.
I found out I was a spammer when I investigated a message returned to me. I ended up talking with someone from SORBS. After emailing SORBS a couple of times, I received this message from Michelle Sullivan: "SORBS lists IP addresses that send spam. Often there is real email mixed with the spam, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally. In this case you are using an IP address to send your email that has previously, and is still, sending spam. The IP address is blocked. I'd contact your provider and complain bitterly about it, because it's the provider that is listed, not you specifically."
I send out a newsletter with about 250 subscribers. After talking with SORBS, I contacted Verizon and found out that, even though we signed up for Verizon Business, they limit the amount of email I can send a week to 500 messages. I rarely approach 200 messages and the newsletter is a monthly. Verizon told me I couldnâ(TM)t even send the newsletter in one blast; I had to limit it to 100 subscribers an hour! And in late Fall 2008, some providers, like MS, would reject my mail simply because it had @Verizon.net in the senderâ(TM)s address. I knew I wasn't sending out large amounts of email, let alone spam.
Within those imposed limits, Verizon still could not bring its huge entity to investigate my complaint. In late December, we switch to Constant Contact to email the newsletter. While my boss uses Cox since he works mostly from home, the office is still âoeconnectedâ with Verizon!
Boy, I hate Verizon! Now, maybe they will kill the Zombies from all those dead zones they claim not to have!
=smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
This implies that they are blocking all outbound port 25 requests. All ISPs in Japan that I am aware of have been doing this for a long time. The problem is that if you have a 3rd party email service provider, you can no longer send email through them because port 25 will be blocked and if the other party offers the alternative port as well, it is still often blocked.
Still, for MOST people, this is a good plan. I just think that users should be informed of this change, informed why it is a good idea for MOST people and to give them an option to "opt out" of the restriction in some way if the restriction is not compatible with their current needs.
Yes and it is only a matter of time before that changes and evolves.
The reason these alternative ports and blocking works is because most everyone else isn't doing this. When it comes to the point where most people are doing this, new methods will arise.
The first scenario that comes to mind is that the next generation of bot-ware will listen to your outgoing email traffic and learn your password then configure itself to send email based on that information. Then once again, the problem returns. And if *I* can conceive of this, then I *know* spammers have already thought of this. (I am comfortable in the assumption that I have never come up with an original idea.) You can expect this to occur within the next year or so. The drive to these measures are largely based on the size of the target audience after all. (This is the reason Mac OS X is mostly immune to attacks and infection... it isn't yet a big enough target!)
Things will get crazier before they get better.
My home ISP (oblig. disclaimer: I now work for them too) has blocked port 25 outbound by default on 'Home' ADSL connections for a while now.
It's all configurable from the online webtools, so you can turn it back on if you want it.
And there's even an in-depth FAQ about it on the site.
IMHO it's a great idea, and I wish more ISPs did it.
I have never really understood why this is an issue. I do think ISPs should be upfront about it before you sign up and if they change what ports they block and how they police their network you should be allowed out of the contract. I don't think its fair for them to write terms that say we can limit what you do in any way we like.
That aside I would like to ask my fellow slashdots running their own mail servers, (I do speakeasy actaully allows this under their tos) why its a problem for you to use your ISP as a smart host?
Personaly I like it. Unlike at work I don't have to worry about keeping the mail server off the black lists, contacting post masters at other domains to get mistakes corrected etc etc. The ISP does msot of that for me. Now speakeasy will relay for my domain, but I think most ISPs will probably trust whatever is coming from their own network to their relay, I hope they pass it through some outbound filter.
On the inbound side, the MX record points directly at my ip address so I get to handle the mail coming in a filter/black list etc according to my own needs. TLS works too if things need ot stay private.
I suppose the only arugment I can think of is even if you are using TLS your ISP can still read your outboand mail, and if I was using version or comcast I might be more concerned about that....
What are other peoples reasons?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Port 666 is reserved for Doom (video game)
Wow, I thought AC was joking, but it's right there in RFC1700!
doom 666/tcp doom Id Software
doom 666/tcp doom Id Software
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.