Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


HostHatch - TCP Port 25 will be blocked by default on June 14th - Page 5
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

HostHatch - TCP Port 25 will be blocked by default on June 14th

1235

Comments

  • DPDP Administrator, The Domain Guy

    @sibaper said:
    I like how Linode handle about this thing, leave the old customer as is, but block port 25 for new customer.

    Every provider has their own ways of doing things, and in this case, HostHatch customers can simply request to get whitelisted just by providing the required justification via a ticket, where for old customers it's probably just a one-liner, whereas for new customers they might need to take HostHatch Staff and Management Team out for lunch or dinner treat for a get-to-know session before getting whitelisted.

  • defaultdefault Veteran
    edited May 2021

    @skorous said:

    @default said: No. Just 80 will be blocked first, because connection needs to be encrypted, especially on said websites.

    Current "issue" aside, I really must give you credit. You walk such a fine line that I can never tell if you're a troll who likes to start drama or actually give a shit about the things you bring up.

    I am both. I like trolling and drama like anyone else, but I also like a good conversation with people thinking differently and bringing up different arguments. In this case it's about limiting the internet, and limitations always come slowly, affecting our freedom because corporations set a so called "industry standard" also by walking on a fine line.

    I hope you see my point in using deductive arguments sometimes, like in this reply regarding port 80. On one side you can say that such website need to be encrypted with SSL, but on another side why would they be encrypted if no confidential data is processed? And yet, we get notifications on all browsers (especially Google Chrome) that a website is not encrypted, slowly developing a popular block on port 80, as an industry standard, which was started by Google anyway to promote SSL.

    So now the trolling part comes into play: let's have an industry standard here too, because I don't want my neighbor to be a man-in-the-middle on my wifi, and watch me looking at adult content. Meanwhile... is this really necessary? Yet, it will happen, just like with port 25, for their so called "industry standard" as solution set by big corporations.

    Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • Has anybody made a joke about @default blocking port 25.

    Thanked by 1FrankZ
  • defaultdefault Veteran
    edited May 2021

    @SmallWeb said:
    Has anybody made a joke about @default blocking port 25.

    None. I honestly was expecting something... but nothing so far. I even got to the point of wanting to make a self irony of the title, or people mentioning me in regards to port 25, but I did not wish to derail an important debate.

    Thanked by 2MichaelCee FrankZ
  • MichaelCeeMichaelCee Barred
    edited May 2021

    @default said:

    @SmallWeb said:
    Has anybody made a joke about @default blocking port 25.

    but I did not wish to derail an important debate.

    It's okay. It's what I'm here for.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @hostwebis said:
    Are they giving you a discount for not letting to use port 25?
    Selling a Server or VPS without port 25 is very bad.
    In the end, you will have to use another provider to send even a single email.

    Why Sir?
    The clearly said they will open port if client ask for it with proper justification

    If client can't open a single ticket then they shouldn't use any server

    Thanked by 1brueggus
  • Daniel15Daniel15 Veteran
    edited May 2021

    @epaslv said: So the industry standard is to block all traffic on port 25?

    Yes

    Where is this this industry standard publicised?

    https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/letters-isps-about-spam-zombies/spam_zombies_letter.pdf (PDF):

    block port 25 except for the outbound SMTP requirements of authenticated users of mail servers designed for client traffic. Explore implementing Authenticated SMTP on port 587 for clients who must operate outgoing mail servers.

    https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf (PDF):

    Block access to port 25 from all hosts on your network, other than those that you explicitly authorize to perform SMTP relay functions. Such hosts will certainly include your own Email Submission servers and may also include the legitimate Email Submission servers of your responsible customers

    RFC 4409:

    For example, due to the prevalence of machines that have worms,
    viruses, or other malicious software that generate large amounts of
    spam, many sites now prohibit outbound traffic on the standard SMTP
    port (port 25

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-akagiri-op25b-dynamicip-01:

    Outbound Port 25 Blocking has been widely used over a decade as a
    countermeasure against mail spams. It is the operation to filter TCP
    traffic which (1) the source IP addresses are dynamic IP addresses
    and (2) the destination port is 25. Since ordinal mail message
    submissions from dynamic IP addresses can be done via submission port
    (port number 587), operators can introduce the blocking without
    preventing ordinal mail message submissions.

    (this was just a draft, and is specifically for residential IPs, but hosting provider IP ranges are not too different to residential IPs in that it's a shared IP pool used by a large number of customers)

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @epaslv said: VPS Cost $10/month Mailchannels so you can send mail: $79/month

    Amazon SES for for the first 62,000 emails per month: $0 per month.

  • hosthatchhosthatch Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Also, opening a ticket costs $0. :)

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    100+ comments over blocking port 25 which is a common practice.

    lol. HT is gonna get some customers from this.

    Thanked by 2FrankZ bulbasaur
  • @yoursunny said:

    @raindog308 said:

    @TimboJones said: Both major Canadian ISP's have been blocking port 25 outgoing for over a decade on residential broadband.

    Every ISP I've had in the US does the same.

    Verizon FiOS residential line permits outbound TCP port 25.

    Telnet session:

    $ telnet -4 taylor.mxrouting.net 25
    Trying 168.119.13.219...
    Connected to taylor.mxrouting.net.
    Escape character is '^]'.
    220 taylor.mxrouting.net ESMTP Exim 4.94.2 Mon, 10 May 2021 02:08:15 +0000
    HELO pool-71-178-48-96.washdc.fios.verizon.net
    250 taylor.mxrouting.net Hello pool-71-178-48-96.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.48.96]
    MAIL FROM: [email protected]
    250 OK
    RCPT TO: [email protected]
    250 Accepted
    DATA
    354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
    .
    250 OK id=1lfvMK-0005Dg-KQ
    QUIT
    221 taylor.mxrouting.net closing connection
    Connection closed by foreign host.
    

    Received mail headers:

    Return-Path: <[email protected]>
    Delivered-To: [email protected]
    Received: from taylor.mxrouting.net
      by taylor.mxrouting.net with LMTP
      id kFR8EteVmGClEAAASNW+fg
      (envelope-from <[email protected]>)
      for <[email protected]>; Mon, 10 May 2021 02:09:27 +0000
    Return-path: <[email protected]>
    Envelope-to: [email protected]
    Delivery-date: Mon, 10 May 2021 02:09:27 +0000
    Received: from pool-71-178-48-96.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([71.178.48.96])
      by taylor.mxrouting.net with smtp (Exim 4.94.2)
      (envelope-from <[email protected]>)
      id 1lfvMK-0005Dg-KQ
      for [email protected]; Mon, 10 May 2021 02:09:27 +0000
    Forward-Confirmed-ReverseDNS: Reverse and forward lookup success on 71.178.48.96, -10 Spam score
    Message-ID: <[email protected]>
    X-ACL-Warn: Adding Message-ID header because it is missing!
    SpamTally: Final spam score: unset because ESF not run (SpamAssassin unset, whitelist, or skipped)
    X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
    

    (recipient address changed; all other fields are real)

    Do they allow incoming port 25?

    Since its unencrypted, can't they just filter on mail packets instead of only port?

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited May 2021

    @default said:
    @raindog308 - You are wrong! Services should be open, and the customer should administer the server as he/she needs. This is why such servers are unmanaged by provider. If it's an abuser, then only abusers should be denied; but only when it's an abuse or a potential abuser (orders with VPN/Tor/proxy).

    The fact that big players block port 25 by default is not a good example. "Because big players do it, we should do it too" is not a good way of thinking. If we start taking their example, internet will become controlled by those players, with every small provider adopting their rules, every step of the way. We have the right and privilege to refuse dancing by their rules. I know it's hard, but not impossible.

    And last: customers should always be considered innocent by default, not guilty from start as being blocked for something they did not even commit.

    As a side note sarcasm: maybe we should start advertising Google and Amazon on LET, since we want to adopt their rules and conditions anyway ("The Industry Standard").

    EDIT: forgot the popcorn gif... because in my opinion this is a popcorn drama, whether you like it or not.

    Man, you are naive. They're renting a service from the provider, not owning the infrastructure themselves. If you rented out a house you owned, would you charge damage deposit and last month rent or just wait until you get fucked and then try to get paid?

    Do you complain when you buy a knife that they come with safety protection that needs to be removed before use to prevent accidental use and damage? Jesus fucking Christ the way people think of themselves first all the time.

    Thanked by 1chocolateshirt
  • defaultdefault Veteran
    edited May 2021

    @TimboJones said:

    @default said:
    @raindog308 - You are wrong! Services should be open, and the customer should administer the server as he/she needs. This is why such servers are unmanaged by provider. If it's an abuser, then only abusers should be denied; but only when it's an abuse or a potential abuser (orders with VPN/Tor/proxy).

    The fact that big players block port 25 by default is not a good example. "Because big players do it, we should do it too" is not a good way of thinking. If we start taking their example, internet will become controlled by those players, with every small provider adopting their rules, every step of the way. We have the right and privilege to refuse dancing by their rules. I know it's hard, but not impossible.

    And last: customers should always be considered innocent by default, not guilty from start as being blocked for something they did not even commit.

    As a side note sarcasm: maybe we should start advertising Google and Amazon on LET, since we want to adopt their rules and conditions anyway ("The Industry Standard").

    EDIT: forgot the popcorn gif... because in my opinion this is a popcorn drama, whether you like it or not.

    Man, you are naive. They're renting a service from the provider, not owning the infrastructure themselves. If you rented out a house you owned, would you charge damage deposit and last month rent or just wait until you get fucked and then try to get paid?

    Do you complain when you buy a knife that they come with safety protection that needs to be removed before use to prevent accidental use and damage? Jesus fucking Christ the way people think of themselves first all the time.

    This is not about paying in advance. This is about blocking port 25. To keep the same comparison, it's like renting a house, but taking away the garden from all tenants, because some tenants tend to abuse it by making too much smoke while using it for grill.

    And... this is not related to Jesus Christ either.

    And... this is not about people thinking about themselves either.

    And... this is not about knives either. Such comparison does not stand because a server is not a weapon.

    And... please do not try to derail this topic with your PMS!

  • seriesnseriesn Member
    edited May 2021

    @default said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @default said:
    @raindog308 - You are wrong! Services should be open, and the customer should administer the server as he/she needs. This is why such servers are unmanaged by provider. If it's an abuser, then only abusers should be denied; but only when it's an abuse or a potential abuser (orders with VPN/Tor/proxy).

    The fact that big players block port 25 by default is not a good example. "Because big players do it, we should do it too" is not a good way of thinking. If we start taking their example, internet will become controlled by those players, with every small provider adopting their rules, every step of the way. We have the right and privilege to refuse dancing by their rules. I know it's hard, but not impossible.

    And last: customers should always be considered innocent by default, not guilty from start as being blocked for something they did not even commit.

    As a side note sarcasm: maybe we should start advertising Google and Amazon on LET, since we want to adopt their rules and conditions anyway ("The Industry Standard").

    EDIT: forgot the popcorn gif... because in my opinion this is a popcorn drama, whether you like it or not.

    Man, you are naive. They're renting a service from the provider, not owning the infrastructure themselves. If you rented out a house you owned, would you charge damage deposit and last month rent or just wait until you get fucked and then try to get paid?

    Do you complain when you buy a knife that they come with safety protection that needs to be removed before use to prevent accidental use and damage? Jesus fucking Christ the way people think of themselves first all the time.

    This is not about paying in advance. This is about blocking port 25. To keep the same comparison, it's like renting a house, but taking away the garden from all tenants, because some tenants tend to abuse it by making too much smoke while using it for grill.

    This is actually a @default behavior I have observed in most of the shared (apartment) rented properties that I have ever seen in big cities.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @default said: This is not about paying in advance. This is about blocking port 25. To keep the same comparison, it's like renting a house, but taking away the garden from all tenants, because some tenants tend to abuse it by making too much smoke while using it for grill.

    Here's a more accurate comparison:

    • You join a community that has a homeowner's association (rules)
    • The rules state no farm animals, because some jerks will keep roosters that wake people up at dawn, so the rule says no farm animals
    • However, if you want to fill out a form, you can easily get an exception and keep farm animals, as long as you don't abuse the privilege

    Honestly, this whining about having to open a ticket to unblock port 25 is the most infantile complaint I've ever heard.

  • titustitus Member

    I not really like when a VPS provider default blocking generic ports (like email port, or others), services. It acceptable for me if they open/allow it, if the user ask for it (ticket, control panel, etc). Sadly there are many other abuse form/way for a 'bad user' on his own VPS, or an exploited/hacked VPS (not only the email spam). And the provider can't solve, prevent these abuses with a simple port (or other) limitations. But these (port) restrictions can be 'disappointing'/problem for a lot of fair users.

    For example: I sending out (automatically) from my VMs a various 'system, firewall alerts' & log samples by email to my self-hosted 'central postbox', what I check daily. (CSF/LFD, OSSEC, etc). If it can't work, i'm not happy. :( A 'mail server' application on a VPS is a 'generic usage' (for me).

    PS: I haven't service or experience with HostHatch. This is only my generic opinion. And I can understand, when a provider try to prevent the abuses.

  • defaultdefault Veteran
    edited May 2021

    @raindog308 said:

    Honestly, this whining about having to open a ticket to unblock port 25 is the most infantile complaint I've ever heard.

    And yet... infants need to open support tickets for it. It's like provider sees them all as infants.

  • OujiOuji Member
    edited May 2021

    @epaslv said: Here is the breakdown:

    VPS Cost $10/month
    Mailchannels so you can send mail: $79/month

    Or you can get Mailgun with 30K free e-mails monthly.

    You are also free to change hosts anytime.

    Sometimes I really wonder if @hosthatch is not paying people to create unnecessary drama so the threads are always on top LOL

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @Ouji said:
    Sometimes I really wonder if @hosthatch is not paying people to create unnecessary drama so the threads are always on top LOL

    I prefer HostHatch drama threads over RackNerd fire threads. WOW!

    Thanked by 2skorupion Ouji
  • jmgcaguiclajmgcaguicla Member
    edited May 2021

    @yoursunny said:

    @Ouji said:
    Sometimes I really wonder if @hosthatch is not paying people to create unnecessary drama so the threads are always on top LOL

    I prefer HostHatch drama threads over RackNerd fire threads. WOW!

    Thank you for your kind words, your IQ has been halved.

    Thanked by 1Daniel15
  • rootedrooted Member

    @Ouji said:
    Or you can get Mailgun with 30K free e-mails monthly.

    No more such plan now. https://www.mailgun.com/pricing/
    Try us out! Get 5,000 free emails per month for 3 months, then only pay for what you send

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @jmgcaguicla said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @Ouji said:
    Sometimes I really wonder if @hosthatch is not paying people to create unnecessary drama so the threads are always on top LOL

    I prefer HostHatch drama threads over RackNerd fire threads. WOW!

    Thank you for your kind words, your IQ has been halved.

    Half of infinity is infinity.

    Thanked by 2webcraft skorupion
  • epaslvepaslv Member
    edited May 2021

    Very funny, we have all become spam zombies

    Thanked by 1skorupion
  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited May 2021

    @default said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @default said:
    @raindog308 - You are wrong! Services should be open, and the customer should administer the server as he/she needs. This is why such servers are unmanaged by provider. If it's an abuser, then only abusers should be denied; but only when it's an abuse or a potential abuser (orders with VPN/Tor/proxy).

    The fact that big players block port 25 by default is not a good example. "Because big players do it, we should do it too" is not a good way of thinking. If we start taking their example, internet will become controlled by those players, with every small provider adopting their rules, every step of the way. We have the right and privilege to refuse dancing by their rules. I know it's hard, but not impossible.

    And last: customers should always be considered innocent by default, not guilty from start as being blocked for something they did not even commit.

    As a side note sarcasm: maybe we should start advertising Google and Amazon on LET, since we want to adopt their rules and conditions anyway ("The Industry Standard").

    EDIT: forgot the popcorn gif... because in my opinion this is a popcorn drama, whether you like it or not.

    Man, you are naive. They're renting a service from the provider, not owning the infrastructure themselves. If you rented out a house you owned, would you charge damage deposit and last month rent or just wait until you get fucked and then try to get paid?

    Do you complain when you buy a knife that they come with safety protection that needs to be removed before use to prevent accidental use and damage? Jesus fucking Christ the way people think of themselves first all the time.

    This is not about paying in advance.

    You just said to let the abuse/damage happen and then enforce rules or try and prevent future abuse, there's no making you whole from the damage done to the IP's and network. Don't try and weasel out of that argument now.

    This is about blocking port 25. To keep the same comparison, it's like renting a house, but taking away the garden from all tenants, because some tenants tend to abuse it by making too much smoke while using it for grill.

    What? No, there's no garden and a grill, just a garden or grill. It's like asking the people who want to actually do gardening sign up on a sheet or let the building manager know to be able to access the garden (or BBQ. It's perfectly normal to ensure that rules of use are read and understood). It's not a block, just need permission. I really don't understand how you could be this obtuse?

    And... this is not related to Jesus Christ either.

    Fuck, swearing needs to be explained to you, too?

    And... this is not about people thinking about themselves either.

    No? Because you're clearly "they won't let me do this, wah wah".

    And... this is not about knives either. Such comparison does not stand because a server is not a weapon.

    Ok, now you're REALLY being obtuse. This change is explicitly to prevent ABUSE where a server is being used as a weapon.

    And... please do not try to derail this topic with your PMS!

    Man o fucking man, it's irritating talking to someone who just.doesn't.get.it. Let's review. Provider makes a change in service, explains why and justification. You're throwing a tantrum that you should be allowed to do whatever the fuck you want and the provider takes the consequences JUST SO YOU DON'T NEED TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO USE PORT 25. You're proving my point that you're all about yourself.

    You must be young. You sound like you have no life experience or a very narrow one.

  • @default said:

    @raindog308 said:

    Honestly, this whining about having to open a ticket to unblock port 25 is the most infantile complaint I've ever heard.

    And yet... infants need to open support tickets for it. It's like provider sees them all as infants.

    Your reasoning is defective. You misunderstood who the infants are in this case.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    image

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • @epaslv said:
    Good time to ditch my VPS's I have with them.

    Dumb as dog shit providers who limit services in such a brain dead way like this impact on all users not just mail abusers.

    Good luck! Hope the door hit you on your way out (or is it the other way around) :)

  • lonealonea Member, Host Rep

    Haha, this is hilarious.

    Never seen someone with such passion when only paying a few dollars for a service. As if their a mission critical app that makes millions for every second that is down is hosted on there.

  • LeviLevi Member

    @lonea said:
    Haha, this is hilarious.

    Never seen someone with such passion when only paying a few dollars for a service. As if their a mission critical app that makes millions for every second that is down is hosted on there.

    This is how lowend world reacts. Paying as low as possible you must keep expectations very high and in case any limitations arrive - outrage and revolt.

    Lowend niche is more stressfull than b2b or premium service. Irony.

Sign In or Register to comment.