reply to Gene's reply-to address

[Gene Heskett]

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.