RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns

• Previous message: Chris Blask: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• In reply to: Mason Schmitt: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Next in thread: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: "'Mason Schmitt'" <mason@schmitt.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:58:11 -0500

> > If Ed WANTS to learn, he'll learn. If Ed wants his porn, you're
> > annoying him, go away.
>
> That's completely true. No argument here at all.

What more can be done then? The opportunities for end users to learn are
boundless - if they choose to do it. You just agreed that you can't make
them learn so maybe we should just drop this from the options list.

 
> > Why has spam control become the responsibility of the ISP?
> Unless it's
> > originating from your network - and you have specifically
> disallowed
> > such usage on your network via contractual agreements
> between you and
> > the customer - why do you care how much spam your customers
> get? Only
> > as an add-on service should an ISP be involved.
>
> Haven't you heard? Spam is a global problem. Many of the
> means of dealing with spam involve voluntary cooperation from
> as many people as possible to combat the problem. That
> cooperation entails such things as outbound port 25 blocks at ISPs.

As I said, "Unless it's originating from your network..." I hate spam as
much as the next guy, but I hate most spam filters as well. If ISPs stopped
allowing spam to be sent, I would be able to get ALL of my e-mail that I
want and none to little that I don't.

 
> As for the recipient of the spam. Most ISPs now do a basic
> level of inbound spam filtration, just to ease the load on
> their mail servers, let alone appease angry customers.

In my opinion, that's where they make their mistake. Once they/you accept a
certain amount of liability you own it all.

> Most ISPs also offer a subscription anti-spam service to those
> that want it. If you don't want to subscribe to the
> anti-spam service, I assure you that there is still tons left
> over after the ISP's basic filtering- you'll get all the spam
> you handle.

I don't subscribe, and I get very little spam. I'm a "smart" e-mail user and
receive my spam elsewhere. :) Further, I can't chance losing e-mails that
are misunderstood by whatever filtering system my ISP is using.

>
> > I guess I'm still confused. What issues are you having
> because of your
> > customer's lack of security? Loss of bandwidth? Attacks on your
> > internal network? What, exactly, is the result of your
> customers being bad?
>
> I'll give you some examples in a sec, but first, since we are
> tossing quotes around, here's one for you, "An ounce of
> prevention is worth a pound of cure". I know that I have to
> do my part and hope that others do theirs. As a result the
> problem will diminish overall.

Well, I haven't thrown any quotes around yet, but a couple just came to
mind:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (don't know who)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

> Here's an example that's not related to Internet access and bandwidth.
> In North America (and starting to become a problem in most
> developed nations), smoking is becoming a huge problem.
> Smoking is known to be linked to many forms of cancer, birth
> defects, gum disease, many respiratory diseases, etc, etc. -
> it's a really long list. Some people consider smoking to be
> a personal choice, so lets run with that.

I'm one of them, so lets. However I have to correct your theory here,
smoking is much more of a problem in underdeveloped countries - poor people
smoke, always have, always will.

> My first argument pertains more to Canada and other countries that have
public
> medical systems.

Why? It certainly helps make your point but has nothing to do with our
discussion. In fact, your arguing for the ISP to play mom and dad aligns
itself nicely with the philosophies behind state health care.

 
> When enough people choose to smoke, they are placing an
> unnecessary burden on the public medical system, thereby
> degrading it for everyone else.

How so? They're paying taxes on every tobacco product they buy. They die
before being kept alive in a nursing home for 10 years. As Rush is fond of
point out - cause it's true, which makes him right - smokers SAVE countries
money by paying taxes and then dying before they collect!

 
> You may be one of those militant smokers that feels it is
> their right to smoke wherever they please.

Only every place I paid for or have control of. :)

> If you decide you want to smoke in public, you may be smoking next to
someone
> that is an asthmatic.

That would be rude of me, but if I'm in a designated smoking area, rude of
him/her.

> It's well known that second hand smoke
> is just as deadly, if not more so, than the smoke you pull
> through your filter - if you and other militant smokers get
> their way, non smokers are now suffering the same health
> problems that are common amongst smokers.

Wrong on several levels, here's a few. The filter is more deadly than
anything in the tobacco - I smoke home-rolls with no filter - outside of the
chemicals the government has mandated be put into the product to help it
burn and other things. As for second-hand smoke, it has NEVER been PROVEN to
cause anything, and especially so in the great outdoors. They've done many
studies but nothing that has ever been conclusive or even fair. Most of
these studies have been debunked, discredited or called into serious
question by real scientists (who also don't like smoking, but have some
feelings toward professional integrity). Seems outrageous, given the media
on the subject, but if its not true let me fall over dead now.

> Other people may
> be enjoying the fresh air or a good meal and you are denying
> them that. The effect can even be as simple as making
> someone else's clothes stink. No matter how you look at it,
> this is more than just your problem - you are involving other
> people that may not want to have anything to do with you.

All parties are making a choice. The people who don't want to be near my
smoking should choose a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking or sit in the
non-smoking section. It's their/your choice and not my responsibility. You
don't walk into a place not owned or controlled by you and impose your will
on everyone there. In some places I know, that'd get you taken out back...

 
> I promised I'd give you an example relating to your use of
> your Internet connection. Here's one really good example for you.
<SNIP>
> I then kicked myself for not having implemented rate limiting
> and really basic spam filtering on our outbound smtp relay
> like I had planned to and set about working out how I was
> going to do that. It turns out that it not feasible with our
> current solution, so this week I'm working on building a new
> mail server that will allow me to do the egress filtering I
> need to do.
>
> All in all, the fact that there weren't more safe guards in
> place cost us time and money and affected a fair number of
> customers. It has also pulled me away from other important
> work and thus I get further behind.
>
> If that doesn't paint a clear enough picture of why you
> should not be able to have a wide open un-restricted pipe of
> your own, let me know and I'll give you some more examples.

More then, please. This is an example of a user getting hacked and outbound
traffic not being monitored - which as I stated originally, I agree is your
responsibility. It does not represent the reasoning behind my not being
"allowed" to use Shareaza or download bit torrent files all day long. It
doesn't qualify as an excuse for you to spy on my traffic (that isn't
hitting you in the way of outbound e-mail, scans, etc.) or throttle it down
below advertised, contracted and bought levels.

For me, and ISP should only respond to attacks on itself. This includes
outbound attacks (such as the bot you described) since it is using your mail
server and your IP range and thereby effecting your business. It also
includes attacks on your network appliances and servers. The people
responsible should be hunted down and killed. <g> BUT, and this is no small
but, that does not give you cause to play the part of my mom without even
being asked to do so! In my opinion anyway...

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

• Previous message: Chris Blask: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• In reply to: Mason Schmitt: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Next in thread: R. DuFresne: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]