On Wednesday 23 March 2005 10:52, Paul Howarth wrote: >Gene Heskett wrote: >> And verizon strikes again. My apologies Alexander. But I am >> subscribed to this list and the list comes in fine. They >> (verizon) are not, IIRC, properly honoring a reverse lookup, and >> those MTA's that require that, per the rfc, will hang it up. Or >> at least thats what I've been told. >> >> I've bitched, lots of people have bitched, but verizon seems >> adamant in their refusal to conform to the rfc's. They only >> closed their open relay status last fall after over a million of >> us were defined on half the friggin planets RBL lists. They >> screwed with it for several months before that faded away, and now >> they've been seducing the canine again, no service for about 10 >> hours total in the past 7 days, with no explanations offered when >> you call. > >Do you have a reference for this (reverse lookups) anywhere? I can > see two different problems with Verizon's mail servers at present, > but they don't include reverse lookups: > >1. For outgoing mail, they have stopped supporting AUTH LOGIN (RFC >2554). Given that AUTH LOGIN sends credentials in plain text (well, >base64 encoded) over the network, there is at least *some* > justification for this. > >2. For incoming mail, they're blocking much of Europe by IP address. > The google URL I posted earlier has meny references to this, and > it's much less defensible. They're also using a home-brewed sender > verification scheme that can appear at times to be > indistinguishable from a dictionary attack. > >> I'd get somebody else for an ISP, but in this little piece of the >> planet, they are the *only* game in town if you don't want to go >> back to dialup at $30 more a month. Cable can supply in the >> surrounding areas, at about 2x the $$ a month but not here. I >> tossed them and got a Dish, $20 a month cheaper. But that doesn't >> get me internet access either. > >I'm quite happy with my own ISP and the services they provide, and > if it wasn't for the fact that I'm such a geek, I'd be using their > mail, DNS, web etc. services. However, I choose not to; I run my > own servers for these services for my domain, and thus do not > suffer from any cock-ups other than my own - I use my ISP for > connectivity only. I guess that would be an option for you too? > >Paul. No darnit, the TOS specificly precludes running a server of any kind, and they do actively block port 80. Top that with my firewall set to block all non-established incoming, and a mail server here would be unreachable anyway. I'd have to setup an entry for a dmz, and alias that to another port 1:1 to do that, although I have considered setting up qmail a time or two. I'd have to setup something to keep me uptodate at dyndns of course as my IP address does change occasionally. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
