> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > On May 30, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > So what ISP was blocked? > > What are you, the ISP police? Not that it's any of your business, it > was X0 DSL Your repeated, unprovoked public complaints about the blocking that affected you made XO's identity not the business of everyone who cares about such issues. Then there were your comments about "near monopolies." > and I paid just under $100/month and hosted my server at > home; it was blacklisted as part of a larger block of IP addresses > beyond my control. When I moved physically, I took the opportunity to > move my server to a hosted service for guppylake.com, and NOW am on a > normal cable modem at home. I've been associated with the domain > guppylake.com for almost twenty years, however, and I rather like to > continue sending mail from that address even though I now obtain my > bitstream from Comcast. > > But I imagine that X0 is also on your list of ISP's-that-are-evil, so > it was my fault for using them in the first place. That reference that any list of mine of evil ISPs is disingenuous. Besides, I bet you know as well as I do that RoadRunner probably blocked that larger block of addresses because of lots of spam. For a while XO was having difficulty acting against its spamming customers. I've not noticed such complaints for a while. It does sounds as if you have made a habit of hiring ISPs without exercising due diligence. If that is true, you might blame your parents but not me. I don't blame you for the fact that until recently I've always paid much more than $100/month to host my vanity domain, but then it has not been blacklisted. I have moved it more than once when I lost confidence in an ISP. > > Why do I suspect you are being disingenuous > > and that it was a $30/month account? > > I don't know, perhaps because you have a suspicious nature and are > quick to assume the worst about people? Instead of using ad hominem, you might recall your own words such as ] ... near-monopolistic market positions. The latter exception ] is important, however; I'd certainly be upset if my cable provider ] did it, because I don't have any good alternatives Then there is your coyness about XO's identity. Why didn't you come out and name it at the start? > I am not really the sort of > person who tells lies on an IETF list just to make a point. Where have I lied? For your part, you have repeatedly intentionally misrepresented my words and generally been disingenuous. For example, your words above imply that I had no business asking which ISP was involved in the blocking you have repeatedly complained about. You made the identity of the ISP a relevant point by your demands that I stop "random speculating" as well as by your repeated complaints about RoadRunner's blocking. > For my part, I am sufficiently paranoid to fear that ISP's might > advocate port 25 blocking because they hope it will lock people into > email addresses that are less portable (e.g. nsb@xxxxxxxxxxx). But > when they give other reasons, no matter how irrational I may think they > sound, I try at least to give their sincerity the benefit of the doubt. That is also disingenuous. While I share concerns about locking people into addresses, you know that blocking port 25 is unrelated if people use some flavors of what you called "a more spam-resistant infrastructure for SMTP message submission," such as SMTP-SUBMIT, or simple "web mail." Why don't you give RoadRunner's sincerity the benefit of the doubt about the blocking of your XO address? Did you check any of the well know resources such as news.admin.net-abuse.sightings for evidence of spam from your neighbors or did you just start complaining about evil "near-monopolies"? Do you have any substantive responses to my counters against your claims that port 25 blocking is useless and harmful? I claim - port 25 blocking by $30/month providers would block little more than the spam that might someday be blocked by Caller-ID, SPF, etc. - the legitimate mail blocked or false positives caused by port 25 blocking is similar or less than that for Caller-ID, SPF, etc. - port 25 blocking can be implemented today piecemeal by individual providers on the sending side in routers and on the receiving side using blacklists, while Caller-ID, SPF, etc. must wait at least 5 or 10 years until most of the Internet implements them. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf