ISPs Blocking Port 25 To Curb Spam Hurts The Honest Guy

[Ed Hansberry]

This morning I woke up, logged into my laptop and started taking care of a number of emails in my various accounts. I have one work account and 4 personal accounts. Three of those personal accounts are using other SMTP servers, including my Pocket PC Thoughts account. Do do this, you need access to port 25. Why are ISPs blocking these? Because of ignorant people. They never run Windows Update, they installed a virus scanner in 2001 and haven't run a single update and click on every attachment in their inbox. Their computers are zombies sending out hundreds of millions of emails a day. <a href="http://news.com.com/Attack+of+Comcast%27s+Internet+zombies/2010-1034_3-5218178.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news">Comcast admits "We're the biggest spammer on the Internet"</a> because of these users.<br /><br />Did Bellsouth.net, my ISP, warn me? Did they send out and email telling me port 25 would no longer be available? No! <i>(Please note: the rest of this post can best be appreciated it you print it off and read it while storming around the room, occasionally giving a stilted kick or two at nothing in particular, and, of course, a bit of spittle can't hurt either.)</i><!> So after about 30 minutes of figuring out why most of my emails weren't sending through various accounts and 3 different email clients, it dawned on me that port 25 was probably blocked. I called their customer service department and after getting bounced around to 4 people, I finally got someone that knew what was going on. "Yup. 25 has been blocked and we aren't unblocking it for anyone. Period."<br /><br />AAARGGGHHH!!! I've been with them nearly three years and they took away my ability to send emails through my other email servers. I have a laptop and can't reconfigure all of my accounts to send through their servers because when I am on the road or connected through another network, <i>their</i> email server is unavailable to me. They allow no external access to their SMTP server. Idiots. So, the solution to the spam problem cause by a few ignorant people with zombie machines and the occasional intentional spammer is to block <i><b>everyone?!?</b></i> What IT genius at Bellsouth.net's made this decision? And who's decision was it to not open that port back up for customers that need it and haven't been accused of spamming?<br /><br />With this logic, I can also fix the prostitution problem. Let's just block driving up and down the roads ladies of the evening hang out at. Never mind the thousands of drivers that use those same roads daily for legitimate reasons. For those few offenders, we'll inconvenience everyone. :evil: <br /><br />I do have a potential alternative that many don't. I could theoretically always VPN into my corporate LAN and send through there, but there is one small problem, and I am not going to beat around the bush on this. Connection Manager for the Pocket PC sucks! It has been broken since Pocket PC 2002 and is <i>still</i> broken in Pocket PC 2003 SE. You cannot VPN into a LAN and send "internet" traffic through that connection unless you have a Proxy Server installed, so this solution would be for my laptop only and on my wireless LAN, that just isn't good enough.<br /><br />So now I have an $80/month business account, which does open port 25, instead of a $47/month home account. :bad-words: Totally insane. All because of some knee-jerk reaction to a valid problem solved with wrong-headed thinking, and as far as computing goes, that is the most evil thing that can happen. And in dealing with evil, Jules may said it best:<br /><div class="quote"> <span class="quote">Jules said:</span> <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2004/20040618-smite.jpg" /> "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." </div>

[entropy1980]

Same thing happened to me this week with Charter no notice port 25 just stopped. So now I am running my SMTP through SSL as a work around (since they won't be blocking SSL any time soon :)...) I was pretty ticked off the least they could have done was warn me and even then I would have been ticked! :evil:

[rcobourn]

One almost solution to this problem is to move your SMTP server to a different port, then use a mailhop provider such as DynDNS (http://www.dyndns.org/services/mailhop/relay.html) to relay your mail through their port 25 server to your non-standard server. I used this for a while when Cox suddenly pulled the same nasty trick. Fortunately I've been able to move my domains to a DSL line at the office, but this got me by for a while. The only problem is with email clients that don't let you adjust the port they connect to for outgoing mail.

[Mitch D]

Ed, don't hold that kind of fury in. You might hurt yourself! Come on and tell us how you really feel! :wink:

On a more serious note, I ill have to check on access to my CalgaryPPC acvount when I get home.

Not that it matters, Telus has pissed me off so much lately that I started the process of switching over to Shaw. Installation should be on the 28th!

[Gremmie]

Anyone notice that Ed's posts have been reduced to two categories: angry and saying bluetooth is dead?

[PR.]

The problem is its not a few people with Zombie PCs its millions of them!

I'd guess 7 in 10 are compromised PCs

Microsoft need to include all the tools to keep this problem away but they have a problem:

Leave the tools out and you are compromising security
Put them in and they are monopolising the market.

I don't doubt Norton/Mcafee etc make great software but the people who buy and install them are the people who already behave carefully

[Jason Dunn]

Anyone notice that Ed's posts have been reduced to two categories: angry and saying bluetooth is dead?

But he's so GOOD at them. :way to go:

[cmchavez]

Frontiernet.net, aka Frontier Communications, did the same thing to all of its users without any notice at all. :evil: I won't even bother calling them to see if they will open things up for me, their customer service reps are pretty useless.

Unfortunately, a situation I will have to live with; they are the only high speed provider in our area. :bad-words:

[freitasm]

Why not use commercial SMTP servers? When using GPRS this problem is even more common and a few of our users came up with a list. The ones I think should be investigated are www.smtp.com and www.fastmail.fm. They both provide SMTP services for a few, which is great for road warriors. Have you ever tried sending e-mails from your Pocket PC while roaming in another country?

[[email protected]]

I work for a local cable company here in San Diego, and I can say from personal experience that the port 25 blocking is a necessary part of our business. Without it we would have to add hundreds of thousands of dollars in hardware to keep up with multitude of crap that flows from internal users. We are not catering to a few bad eggs, we are dealing with a fact of life in our times. Spam is out there, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. Keep in mind that we field less that 1% of our customer base in calls concerning this matter. So the vast majority of our users could care less about port 25 blocking. The extra money that you pay now for your commercial account is one way to ensure the proper use of the service. by moving people who need this access to a different account, we can better serve them in other ways. For instance... if your cable modem goes out the typical commercial trouble call is less than 4 hours to respond (someone calls back) and fixed within 24 hours. The residential product is 2-5 days (an entertainment service). While you may not need this level of service all the time, I can almost gurantee that if you call in because your modem doesn't work and someone quotes you 5 days to get a repairman out to fix it, you would be fried. :?

[Mike Temporale]

Just now? Bell Canada has had this for a long time and they don't offer another higher priced plan where you can get it opened. :(

Best solution is to A) open SMTP on another port. I use 6000 on my server. And if that's not possible then B) move to a smaller DSL company. They tend to let you run wild and free.

[James Fee]

I can't remember the last time I could use SMTP on Cox. I have to use their webmail to send email. Recieve via POP, send via web. What a pain in the ass... :frusty:

[Brad Adrian]

Microsoft need to include all the tools to keep this problem away...
No, I think the ISPs need to provide them and mandate that their customers use them and keep their machines clean. I don't know enough about the systems to know how they could enforce it, but I'm sure they could block access to users who haven't installed and used their digital disinfectants.

[ignar]

If ISP block the SMTP port, how are we supposed to send any email? I have my own hosting and fortunately my hosting company does not block the port (yet), but I have seen many hostings who do not allow SMTP access and advise customers to use ISP's smtp instead. Now ISP starts to block the port, where should we go? As much as webmail is nice and convenient, I very like to store all my correspondence locally, too.

[gai-jin]

Dial up providers I used to use while travelling did this same thing. So have other cable providers I've used. I hated it, since I've been using my own domain and smtp server (hosted at a local ISP) for some time.

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about it. I know if my current ISP were to take up this practice and not make an exception I'd raise holy h*ll. Since I work for the company, I'd hope I could get an exception made, but I am but a small cog in a great machine. . .

And really, for ISP's who advertise unlimited access, isn't this really 'limiting' your access to the internet? I wonder if this is a reason (not in the company's eyes, but if you wanted to really push it) to cancel a contract with the service provider early?

Gai-jin

[gorkon280]

Most ISP's have bene blocking port 25 to the outside for a while. This is to try to stem of the spam coming from open relays taht are accidently on their network. Even with Linux, setting up a open relay available to spammers is pretty easy and this is the main reason for blocking the port to the outside. With in your ISP, you probably still use port 25 for e-mail. IN any case, even your work should not allow connections to port 25 from the outside and same goes for your ISP. Blocking this port to and from outside their network makes alot of sense. Too many GEEKS who THINK they can run thier own mail server end up accidently setting up open relays. Sendmail is not for the faint of heart. I am a geek and I would rather use some other MTA.

[gorkon280]

. .

And really, for ISP's who advertise unlimited access, isn't this really 'limiting' your access to the internet? I wonder if this is a reason (not in the company's eyes, but if you wanted to really push it) to cancel a contract with the service provider early?

Gai-jin

No. Open port 25 relays are a security risk for everyone. Blocking use of port 25 to anything but your own mail servers is a good security practice. If you need universally available e-mail, web mail is by far more easy to do securely.

[butch]

So now I have an $80/month business account, which does open port 25, instead of a $47/month home account. :bad-words: Totally insane. All because of some knee-jerk reaction to a valid problem solved with wrong-headed thinking, and as far as computing goes, that is the most evil thing that can happen.

Why don't you just create a little batch file to switch between two host files, one with ip of your ISP SMTP server for every other smtp server you need., one without (or no host file at all!!) :D
On you PocketPC you could use PocketHost to enable/disable the "re-routing" :-)
Or even better export the both registry keys with and without the entries, and in a few taps you can import the one you need?
And when that works, let me know I will give you my paypal account, you can send me the extra 33$ you save each month, minus some fees since you'll have to loose time to switch from one server to another 8)

[Ed Hansberry]

So now I have an $80/month business account, which does open port 25, instead of a $47/month home account. :bad-words: Totally insane. All because of some knee-jerk reaction to a valid problem solved with wrong-headed thinking, and as far as computing goes, that is the most evil thing that can happen.

Why don't you just create a little batch file to switch between two host files, one with ip of your ISP SMTP server for every other smtp server you need., one without (or no host file at all!!) :D
Now that is the first idea I've heard that makes a bit of sense in my situation.

[Ed Hansberry]

Why don't you just create a little batch file to switch between two host files, one with ip of your ISP SMTP server for every other smtp server you need., one without (or no host file at all!!) :D
Now that is the first idea I've heard that makes a bit of sense in my situation.
Sigh... never mind. All the external SMTP servers I use require authentication, which means I'd have to also change userIDs and passwords.

:bad-words:

[Janak Parekh]

Sigh... never mind. All the external SMTP servers I use require authentication, which means I'd have to also change userIDs and passwords.
I bet a bit of VBScripting would do the trick in reprogramming those... but that would be primarily desktop - not sure if you could do any such thing on the Pocket PC.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Why not use commercial SMTP servers? When using GPRS this problem is even more common and a few of our users came up with a list. The ones I think should be investigated are www.smtp.com and www.fastmail.fm. They both provide SMTP services for a few, which is great for road warriors. Have you ever tried sending e-mails from your Pocket PC while roaming in another country?
You're missing the point -- he already has authenticated SMTP servers accessible. The problem is, he couldn't use those SMTP servers at home, because the network is firewalling all outbound port 25 packets unless the endpoint is BellSouth's mail server. The idea is to shut off all unofficial relays, but it has a rather undesirable side effect. :( Either he switches SMTP servers all the time, or VPNs, neither of which is all that convenient.

--janak

[gai-jin]

No. Open port 25 relays are a security risk for everyone. Blocking use of port 25 to anything but your own mail servers is a good security practice. If you need universally available e-mail, web mail is by far more easy to do securely.

Easy to do securely, but far less convenient. Why should I have to log into my web mail server each time I want to send a message. It's much easier to use outlook to send these messages, especially since it has all my contacts and other information right at hand, and is always open and running on my home pc.

And I can surely see how the arguement could be made that if you are paying for unlimited internet access and the ISP limits it in this way part way thru your service agreement, they have not held up their end of the bargain, or at least materially changed the service in such a way as you should no longer be held to the original obligation.

Gai-jin

[egads]

Anyone notice that Ed's posts have been reduced to two categories: angry and saying bluetooth is dead?

Whats wrong with that ?

Bluetooth is dead :D

[pewter_tankard]

Anyone notice that Ed's posts have been reduced to two categories: angry and saying bluetooth is dead?

Whats wrong with that ?

Bluetooth is dead :D

Why? Surely the answer is, when at home, to connect via Bluetooth to a mobile phone which connects (say, via GPRS) to your email service. :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Anyone notice that Ed's posts have been reduced to two categories: angry and saying bluetooth is dead?

Whats wrong with that ?

Bluetooth is dead :D

Why? Surely the answer is, when at home, to connect via Bluetooth to a mobile phone which connects (say, via GPRS) to your email service. :wink:

:lol: Cute, though not terribly practical or cheap.

On a related matter to get around post 25 blocking, does anyone know of a web email provider that works over HTTP, is usable through Outlook (or OE) and is NOT Hotmail or MSN?

[butch]

Sigh... never mind. All the external SMTP servers I use require authentication, which means I'd have to also change userIDs and passwords.

:bad-words:

:?
I have another solution, get an account with www.netidentity.com, they have SMTP server over port 80. If your ISP block this port too, you'll know it's time to shop arround :mrgreen:
An account with them cost 25$/yr for simple pop3. It required authantification on port 25, but I'm not sure on port 80... I can test that if you want.

[pewter_tankard]

On a related matter to get around post 25 blocking, does anyone know of a web email provider that works over HTTP, is usable through Outlook (or OE) and is NOT Hotmail or MSN?

Actually yes... especially since you're also in the UK. Use the one that I use. http://www.gradwell.com does exactly that (although I buy the nice developer account which allows me a play area for my Web "experiments". I believe that they also provide an email only service to a reseller called http://www.shiremail.com which charge a mere £3.50 a month - I don't know if you get reduced functionality through this reseller.

Both IMAP and POP3 are supported both with and without SSL. I use the WebMail service from work (via an HTTP proxy), via Outlook from home, via WebIS Mail from the iPaq and via Mozilla Thunderbird from my partner's Apple Mac.

Gradwell also support SMTP relay and have a secondary port which isn't port 25 which should help get around most ISP restrictions.

Basically, it does cost more than some services (especially the free ones :wink:) but it does offer a fantastic flexible service. I also use it to manage mailing lists as it supports EZMLM. If you find something it doesn't do, drop Peter Gradwell an email and he's always ready to find a way round the problem.

Sorry if that sounds like an advert, but I'm really happy with the service I get.

Phil

[sharyncern]

While I'm not nearly as savvy as the rest of you posting in this thread, I think this explains something that's had me scratching my head for the past couple of weeks. The address I use for all of my web mail is through Big Planet because they have a built-in spam filter through Postini. I was getting 200+ emails a day in the spam filter (okay with me because they didn't make it to my Inbox in Outlook). For a couple of days a couple of weeks ago I couldn't email out via Outlook with that address. It just wouldn't connect to the SMTP host. Since they were personal emails and not public ones, I just used my private Verizon DSL account and didn't give it another thought. However, I noticed after that that the number of emails caught in my Big Planet spam filter decreased dramatically....down to 20-25 a day from 200+. So it seems Big Planet might have done something like this, only they must have moved it to another port?? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know, and as long as my email works don't really care. But now I'm not scratching my head anymore. Thanks. :wink:

[silentmuse]

No. Open port 25 relays are a security risk for everyone. Blocking use of port 25 to anything but your own mail servers is a good security practice. If you need universally available e-mail, web mail is by far more easy to do securely.

I disagree. Blocking port 25 isn't a security risk, it's a band-aid solution. I still think a better solution is to require at least some level of authentication to the SMTP server. I require authentication to my SMTP server, and as a result any user of mine anywhere can access it to send mail without having to mess around.

Blocking port 25 may be good security practice on your own private network for personal or corporate reasons, but when you are providing a *public* service you have a responsibility to provide full service, not a crippled one....

[Pony99CA]

Spam is out there, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. Keep in mind that we field less that 1% of our customer base in calls concerning this matter. So the vast majority of our users could care less about port 25 blocking.
While I agree the spam problem is horrible, cutting off the ability to send E-mail like that for everybody may go a bit far.

Why not do something like this:

Block port 25
When somebody calls to complain, they're probably in that 1%, so ask about their security.
If they sound clueful, turn port 25 on for them.
If you start getting spam from them, block port 25.

The extra money that you pay now for your commercial account is one way to ensure the proper use of the service. by moving people who need this access to a different account, we can better serve them in other ways. For instance... if your cable modem goes out the typical commercial trouble call is less than 4 hours to respond (someone calls back) and fixed within 24 hours. The residential product is 2-5 days (an entertainment service). While you may not need this level of service all the time, I can almost gurantee that if you call in because your modem doesn't work and someone quotes you 5 days to get a repairman out to fix it, you would be fried. :?
Maybe Ed doesn't feel that $23 per month is worth it, though. If you have to charge, why not a $2 per month fee (or something similar) to just unblock port 25. I bet Ed would be a lot (about 91.3%) less angry. :-D

Steve

[Jonathan1]

Blaming users for the copious amount of security holes is lame. I'm sorry but while its true that users do have a certain responsibility to apply patches the number of patches MS have put out since XP's release is asinine. Even more so when a user is only on dialup. Do me a favor and count up the MB of patches MS has released including SP1 and the upcoming SP2. Its not even funny. Then add to the fact that we can no longer run Windows Updates after an install of XP because of Blaster. I setup a system about 4 months ago and the first thing I did was go to Windows update after getting the OS installed. I didn't even get that far before the system was infected with Blaster. So now we need to patch new Windows systems before they even hit the network. Beautiful.

Sorry Ed. Even though I appreciate the fact that you are aggravated that this is occurring use BOTH hands to point fingers. At MS for their ****tacular insecure POS. And the users for not updating. I've discussed this at length with several older baby boomer users who feel that a computer should be a TV or a VCR and they should just work. Patching, installing SP's, installing new AV software, getting a firewall up and running, worrying about adware, yada yada yada is overkill for them and to a point I agree. The amount of maintenance and TLC that Windows needs out of the box is critically stupid.

I do agree that your ISP should have informed its users of this action but the comparison to prostitution is off. A handful of hookers doesn't propagate the use of prostitution into an epidemic in a matter of hours. LOL. That would be interesting if 10 new hookers were created evry .5 seconds. 8O Man what a world. :lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

The amount of maintenance and TLC that Windows needs out of the box is critically stupid.
Yeah. If people would just learn to download a distro and compile their own kernel and learn a few root commands, we'd all be better off, and that is much easier to do than turn Automatic Updating on in Windows. ;-)

[Janak Parekh]

I didn't even get that far before the system was infected with Blaster. So now we need to patch new Windows systems before they even hit the network. Beautiful.
It's worth pointing out that if you enable ICF, you avoid this. MS's biggest mistake was not enabling ICF by default, and if I understand correctly, they will be doing this for XP SP2.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

I didn't even get that far before the system was infected with Blaster. So now we need to patch new Windows systems before they even hit the network. Beautiful.
It's worth pointing out that if you enable ICF, you avoid this. MS's biggest mistake was not enabling ICF by default, and if I understand correctly, they will be doing this for XP SP2.
That's what I've heard, too. It also sounds like the firewall will be significantly better (bi-directional, I think, to keep applications you accidentally installed from accessing the Internet, which could also help the zombie problem).

Steve

[hotweiss]

I rememer trying out Mozilla Thunderbird... it had the option for port 26, mentioning that this was added in since ISP's were blocking port 25. Now my question is: what servers accept port 26 SMTP requests? And if this option does exist, blocking port 25 will not do anything.

[jeffmd]

alot more then "a few ignorant people " have comprimised pc's saddly enough. And frankly there is 2 answers, both require force. Either require that ISPs investigate reported comprimised accounts (which any recipient of a dos attack will beable to provide) and shut it down if it is indeed comprimised, or pass a law that allows us to sue the complete a*!$ off owners of comprimised machiens (or atleast gie us dibs on owning their computer ^^) or the ISPs that wont shut them down.

[Pony99CA]

alot more then "a few ignorant people " have comprimised pc's saddly enough. And frankly there is 2 answers, both require force. Either require that ISPs investigate reported comprimised accounts (which any recipient of a dos attack will beable to provide) and shut it down if it is indeed comprimised, or pass a law that allows us to sue the complete a*!$ off owners of comprimised machiens (or atleast gie us dibs on owning their computer ^^) or the ISPs that wont shut them down.
Is there some law that prevents you from suing them now? If not, go for it. :-D

Steve

[gai-jin]

While the option of securing your SMTP server by requiring auth is great, it still doesn't solve this problem.

I have to log into the SMTP server that hosts my domain, but it's still on port 25. If my ISP suddenly blocked outbound port 25, I'd be out of luck.

Gai-jin

[beq]

As has been mentioned, I think many mail providers offer affordable subscriptions with access to SMTP(/SSL) proxied on various ports other than 25 (like some usual choices from EMD: FastMail.fm, MailSnare, Runbox, FuseMail, Tuffmail, etc). Seems the most straightforward method other than specialized SMTP relay DNS-provider services, home-brewed systems, etc. For example for $15 setup fee FM gives you SMTP through any port (10MB/msg, 30MB/hr, 80MB/month max). For $13-15/year both MailSnare and Tuffmail's SMTP allow 100MB/msg (with 100-500MB/month bandwidth).

BTW even w/o custom ports, is the standard SMTP/SSL port 465 (assuming your current SMTP servers support it) also blocked, do you know?


http://www.shiremail.com which charge a mere £3.50 a month
(OT) Incidentally, I'm still impressed this IMAP provider could afford a triple-punch commercial antivirus offering (McAfee, Sophos, and Kaspersky) 8O Not to mention SpamAssassin with Bayesian and the 1GB mailbox. Of course, at $78/month they can probably afford anything (I mean, we're talking hosted Exchange price territory here) :D

[DarrenS]

Funny this topic came up this weekend. I was just wondering why my email was not going out. I had just determined that port 25 was blocked and sent my email out over my ISP's SMTP's server. And the I read this topic. I have BellSouth as well.

I think I will be using DynDNS.org's MailHop Outbound service. For $15/yr they offer SMTP replay server on either ports 25, 2525, 10025 with SSL. That is for 150 messages a day. I do not sent that many messages in one day and I'd be willing to pay the $15/yr fee.

I can understand why BellSouth and other ISPs are blocking port 25. What I am upset with BellSouth about is that they did not even give us any warning.

As for SPAM, I am looking for a good piece of s/w that will offer the challenge/response filter coupled with Bayesian. I figure that will get me what I want. I have been using I Hate Spam for 3 years now and it has really cut down the amount of spam I get. But they do not offer challenge/response. I really need that for my wife. I tried SpamBully, but my wife uses Outlook Express and SpamBully only supports challenge/response for Outlook. :(

[beq]

^ That looks good too DarrenS :) Outbound SMTP port-redirector service from other DNS providers that I could recall in addition to the venerable DynDNS.org, are No-IP.com's Alternate-port SMTP ($20/yr for 150 msgs per day, 25MB per msg) and DNSMadeEasy.com's SMTP Service ($10/yr for 500 msgs per day, 100MB per day, 10MB per msg). Not sure if either of these two support SMTP/SSL like DynDNS.org though?

I'd subscribed to DNSMadeEasy's premium DNS service before (but ended up never actually using it, oh well). Anyways I think many other DNS providers also offer this feature (you can check out lists such as this one (http://noeld.com/services.htm) -- although it's technically for "dynamic DNS" providers I'm sure some of them provide this feature).

I myself like using SMTP from the mail providers I'd mentioned in my previous post...

[h--b]

I don't understand all this whining. There is a service on port 587 for
exactly this situation. It is called the Message Submission Agent port
and almost all modern MTAs support it, even Exchange 2003. We use
this with our remote and travel users and it works great and haven't
had a problem using it with any ISP encountered to date.

Another method that many companies use is VPN or PPTP between
their remote clients and their home server. Not too hard to set up
and it is very secure.

In a perfect world, spam and network abuse would not exist and port 25
blocking would not be necessary. In the real world where AOL estimates
that there is now over 10 million home and business PCs that are infected
with backdoors and trojans (thanks to Windows insecurity), blocking port
25 is not only necessary, but should be required for every ISP. And this
is only the beginning if we are to get a handle on the abuse originating
from these infected PCs. At some point in the future, "consumer grade"
network access will be severely limited to HTTP and a few other standard
ports and protocols.

[Kacey Green]

same thing with cox cable as an ISP, thankfully I don't travel often.

[Ed Hansberry]

Fixed!

I just switched to Comcast. Got it up and running, configured my router and redid all of my WEP devices (4!) and port 25 is working for my outbound email. :-)

Now, to call Bellsouth and cancel everything! That's right - my home phone too. We are going 100% cellular. Smooth move Bellsouth. Your idiocy just cost you $1,200 a year from me. :devilboy:

[Janak Parekh]

I just switched to Comcast. Got it up and running, configured my router and redid all of my WEP devices (4!) and port 25 is working for my outbound email. :-)
Congrats. :) Are you finding cable much faster than DSL? There is no comparison between the two here in NY.

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Congrats. :) Are you finding cable much faster than DSL? There is no comparison between the two here in NY.
Not really. IE only renders so fast and DSL here is claimed at 3MBb anyway. DSL Extreme.

[DarrenS]

Fixed!
Now, to call Bellsouth and cancel everything! That's right - my home phone too. We are going 100% cellular. Smooth move Bellsouth. Your idiocy just cost you $1,200 a year from me. :devilboy:

I have been thinking about doing the samething, except I'd be switching to Charter Communications. Thing is, Charter does not have a very good rep.

I have also been thinking about using Vonage. Anyone tried them?

BTW, I did signup with DynDNS.org and got the Outbound Mailhop. I am now sending email on port 2525 via DynDNS.org.

[Janak Parekh]

I have also been thinking about using Vonage. Anyone tried them?
Two of my officemates use it, and seem very happy with it. The quality is certainly very good; I can't distinguish between it and a landline from the other end.

--janak