hi ron,

isnt cable modem a router too these days? i remember reading a manual
in the internet for a cable modem (provided by comcast) that had the
ability to act as DHCP server to the client side, NAT, (it had web
based UI too), etc just like a Linksys box so that you only need a
switch to connect multiple PCs. So the cable modem may well do the
access control too.

thanks
dharani

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:06 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> you have to love comcast. They just blocked my port 25 incoming. A
> quick search around the net reveals they are jerking people around
> regularly on this issue.
>
> The weird part: at last one person claims the blocking is done in the
> cable modem, and can be resolved by just getting a new modem.
>
> Does this seem like a realistic claim? I just assumed it was in the routers.
>
> Here's one transcript.
>
> ron
>
> http://www.johnmasone.com/article.php?id=150
>
>

hi ron,

i was able to dig some more details.

the one i have is RCA (by thomson), model DHG535-2 H/W: 2.0. This
seems to be the manual:

http://www.thomson.net/SiteCollectio..._en_092007.pdf

this modem (newer than the one for which i had read the manual before)
too seems to have those features i mentioned. so i was able to reach
the UI via http://192.168.100.1.

hope this helps.

regards
dharani

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
wrote:
> hi ron,
>
> isnt cable modem a router too these days? i remember reading a manual
> in the internet for a cable modem (provided by comcast) that had the
> ability to act as DHCP server to the client side, NAT, (it had web
> based UI too), etc just like a Linksys box so that you only need a
> switch to connect multiple PCs. So the cable modem may well do the
> access control too.
>
> thanks
> dharani
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:06 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> you have to love comcast. They just blocked my port 25 incoming. A
>> quick search around the net reveals they are jerking people around
>> regularly on this issue.
>>
>> The weird part: at last one person claims the blocking is done in the
>> cable modem, and can be resolved by just getting a new modem.
>>
>> Does this seem like a realistic claim? I just assumed it was in the routers.
>>
>> Here's one transcript.
>>
>> ron
>>
>> http://www.johnmasone.com/article.php?id=150
>>
>>
>

> you have to love comcast. They just blocked my port 25 incoming. A
> quick search around the net reveals they are jerking people around
> regularly on this issue.

And people claim UUCP is obsolete.

Actually, there is a decent amount of noise over switching back to UUCP or
the like to avoid the types of restrictions governments & corporations are
attempting to put on the 'net. Can't wait. :|


On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> you have to love comcast. They just blocked my port 25 incoming. A
>> quick search around the net reveals they are jerking people around
>> regularly on this issue.
>>
>
> And people claim UUCP is obsolete.
>
>


--
And in the "Only Prolog programmers will find this funny" department:

Q: How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: No.
-- Ovid

"By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty
famine. All things change. Air penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the
joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called incense."

"Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions
harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon
opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre."

"This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god
or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire,
kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures"
-- Heraclitus

* LiteStar numnums wrote:
> Actually, there is a decent amount of noise over switching back to UUCP or
> the like to avoid the types of restrictions governments & corporations are
> attempting to put on the 'net. Can't wait. :|

Actually, I might be one of those making that noise (at least in some
german LUG lists) ;-o

Point is: German law requires the ISPs to log all their clients traffic
(who mailed to whom), so that the goverment can spy on the people.
(you know, we're all terrorists ;-o). I'm sure the constitutional court
will stop this (as it did with other coup attempts like Lissabon treaty),
but that will take some time, enough time for bad things to happen.

So we're building up direct (encrypted) uucp links again. Not just to
get around the regulation, but also not to let the spies learn what's
going through the wire.


If anyone likes to have a UUCP feed, just let me know.


cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

cellphone: +49 174 7066481 email: info@metux.de skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My ISP was blocking port 25 outgoing, so I could send mail to my own
mailserver. It turned out that sendmail was listening on port 587 as
well, so I use that instead.

I assumed my ISP was blocking outgoing port 25 to stop captured
machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?

BigPond in Australia blocks outgoing - you can only use their mail server.

I spoke to one of their "security experts" and ended up asking "what
if my remote mailserver was on port 80?". Long pause.

"Well the decision has been made."

"Well good, I'll change to port 80 - have a nice day."

brucee

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM, jfmxl wrote:
> My ISP was blocking port 25 outgoing, so I could send mail to my own
> mailserver. It turned out that sendmail was listening on port 587 as
> well, so I use that instead.
>
> I assumed my ISP was blocking outgoing port 25 to stop captured
> machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
> 25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?
>
>

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM, jfmxl wrote:
> My ISP was blocking port 25 outgoing, so I could send mail to my own
> mailserver. It turned out that sendmail was listening on port 587 as
> well, so I use that instead.
>
> I assumed my ISP was blocking outgoing port 25 to stop captured
> machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
> 25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?

My ISP blocks common incoming ports (25, 80) by default, presumably
because they see much more abuse than legitimate use - just think of
the number of people who run mail/www servers over residential
broadband vs the number of people with potentially vulnerable windows
machines. Fortunately for me, my ISP also provides an easy way to turn
the filtering off.
-sqweek

Here in Saudi Arabia, most ISPs are happy to provide what I like to call
"five sevens" service.
I think that it would be awesome to have a net connection stable enough to
run a smtp or http server.
Then again I think it would be nice to have an ISP where I don't have to run
"pull" 3 or 4 times in order to get a full update.

I can't get out of here fast enough (2.5 months left on contract).

-jcw

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, sqweek wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM, jfmxl wrote:
> > My ISP was blocking port 25 outgoing, so I could send mail to my own
> > mailserver. It turned out that sendmail was listening on port 587 as
> > well, so I use that instead.
> >
> > I assumed my ISP was blocking outgoing port 25 to stop captured
> > machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
> > 25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?
>
> My ISP blocks common incoming ports (25, 80) by default, presumably
> because they see much more abuse than legitimate use - just think of
> the number of people who run mail/www servers over residential
> broadband vs the number of people with potentially vulnerable windows
> machines. Fortunately for me, my ISP also provides an easy way to turn
> the filtering off.
> -sqweek
>
>

Port 587 is mostly used for TLS encrypted SMTP. Blocking outgoing 25 is
madness. Email is one rudimentary service everyone expects from their
Internet connectivity and not everybody uses web mail interfaces.

> machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
> 25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?

I guess because terms of service for a home user do not cover serving from
the user's site. Ron Minnich said it's his home machine so I assume he has
paid for a plan with the word "home" somewhere in the plan title or the
ToS. ISPs like to distinguish "servers" from "clients" so that they can
safely cram as many little "clients" into one big channel as possible.
"Clients" don't expect quality of service--most of them don't _understand_
quality of service.

A dial-up ISP I once bought services from used to block ICMP. When I
complained they said it was to safeguard the users against Smurf attacks. I
knew it was to safeguard themselves against users snooping into their
poorly configured internal network. I went as far as getting a prompt from
one of their routers--it had a never-configured telnet server running--but
I didn't know what to do next. It was no use anyway.

--On Monday, November 10, 2008 9:59 AM +0000 jfmxl wrote:

> My ISP was blocking port 25 outgoing, so I could send mail to my own
> mailserver. It turned out that sendmail was listening on port 587 as
> well, so I use that instead.
>
> I assumed my ISP was blocking outgoing port 25 to stop captured
> machines from spamming. Why do you think yours stopped incoming port
> 25? Probably just easier to block it in both directions?
>

* Eris Discordia wrote:

> I guess because terms of service for a home user do not cover serving from
> the user's site. Ron Minnich said it's his home machine so I assume he has
> paid for a plan with the word "home" somewhere in the plan title or the
> ToS. ISPs like to distinguish "servers" from "clients" so that they can
> safely cram as many little "clients" into one big channel as possible.

Yeah, that's this kind of ISP which ****s on net neutrality and other
fundamental concepts of the internet. Such traitors deserve their routes
deannounced from time to time (route flapping can be a nice game ;-o).

> A dial-up ISP I once bought services from used to block ICMP. When I
> complained they said it was to safeguard the users against Smurf attacks.
> I knew it was to safeguard themselves against users snooping into their
> poorly configured internal network. I went as far as getting a prompt from
> one of their routers--it had a never-configured telnet server running--but
> I didn't know what to do next. It was no use anyway.

Why didn't you just try out the factory settings and fix the problem
by yourself ? ;-O


cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

cellphone: +49 174 7066481 email: info@metux.de skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------