The FTC vs. The Zombies
from the when's-the-sequel-coming-out? dept
Apparently the various attempts by broadband ISPs to cut down on "zombie machines" sending out spam isn't cutting it with the FTC and regulators in 35 other countries. They're teaming up in an effort to slay zombies around the world, which certainly sounds like the premise for a schlock horror film. As with those films, the zombies are likely to keep popping up, and it's likely there will be plenty of time for more than a few sequels. We eagerly await The FTC vs. The Zombies, Part IX: This Time, It's Port 25.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Private Mail Servers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not that unreasonable
It is clear that FTC's suggestion relates to end-user ISPs, not ISP offerings for connecting large corporate/government networks to the 'net.
Individuals and small companies who have the technical expertise and need to bypass their ISP's SMTP server ought to be able to adapt to reasonable ISP accomodations: The port 587 idea above, only opening port 25 upon request, etc.
There are already workarounds today for ISPs that block port 25, because plenty of ISPs already do. My ISP's mail servers are crap, so for years I've used a Usenet/mail third-party provider that costs $6 a month. They have more basic accounts for $30 a year. I can send mail through them using "receive before send" authentication on a non-standard port as much as I want, and because they are very careful with their mail server operation my outgoing mail is less likely to be flagged as spam.
The German political spam fiasco last week was another good example that something needs to be done, and the solution has to be a technical one. As solutions go, what the FTC is proposing seems balanced. It _may_ contribute to some ISPs deciding to implement something very unreasonable, but some ISPs already do that and competition remains the best way to sort that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not that unreasonable
As to competition sorting it out, that's why the FTC wants to pressure all ISP's to block so there will be none that don't. Of course, it's not like there is much real broadband competition in the US anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]