A step in the right direction

[thebassman]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...tacodalogin=yes

An article about a Canadian ISP that will be implimenting free anti-virus software for all it's customers... Thoughts, comments?

[Miss Betsy]

To have anti-viral and firewalls as part of the price of signing up for internet connectivity is a good step in the right direction (as is having them built into Windows).

I am glad it has become cost effective for ISPs to do that. Maybe someone should send a copy of the article to Comcast.

If the spammers can't sneak around to send their spam, it will become more costly for them to send and easier to block.

Miss Betsy

[Jank1887]

I am glad it has become cost effective for ISPs to do that

27588[/snapback]

Don't forget, it's gotten cost effective for ISPs to do that because virus's and spam have become so costly. While it's good that they're doing it, it sucks that they have to.

Another case of advertising costs being passed onto the consumer. "Postage due", anyone?

[dra007]

This is becoming quite common. Two of my providers use both virus and spam filters. Often phishers and other type of scams end up in the virus contaminated folder. The files are de-fanged of any dengerous contents, so even bozos that would otherwise open these e-mails are protected.

[Jeff G.]

Road Runner has been advertising "FREE eTrust EZ Armor - Now with Anti-Spyware!" from Computer Associates via its website http://www.rr.com/ and TV ads. The fine print includes that the offer is for residential customers, is a 1-year subscription valued at US$99.90, and includes:

• PestPatrol Anti-Spyware
  
• EZ Antivirus
  
• EZ Firewall
  
• EZ Anti-spam
  

[WisTex]

I think it is starting to become a trend. More and more ISPs are offering it, not just for the protection it gives, but also as something that makes their ISP better than the others. Part of it is marketing, but it also addresses a real need, which is good.

[petzl]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...tacodalogin=yes

An article about a Canadian ISP that will be implimenting free anti-virus software for all it's customers...  Thoughts, comments?

27563[/snapback]

The 'service" is going to help cut down on virus (by compulsory screening) not sure if the FireWall is going to be software or hardware (ideally both is what is required) My signature shows free software for this

No mention of spam prevention?

It is best never to use an email address provided by an ISP as they really are not interested in much except milking your bank account.

By not using their "email service" you would save $8 a month or $116 a year

[rooster]

Hi;

I had an enjoyable chat with my ISP dude last evening. I was inquiring about the additional string of acronyms which began appearing recently at the bottom of my email headers

In a nutshell, this little ISP which serves Delta, B.C., Point Roberts and part of NW Washington, decided to invest MailGate and a palette of SURBL's (including sc) into their service package; no charge. (So far...)

The options and choices as to how my email now may be filtered, filed, forwarded, and/or ..... well, ... let's just call it, 'porn-popped'.... *before* it arrives at my inbox, are going to relieve me of no-end of grief and annoyance. And time ....!!! Can one wish, dare one pray, that if enough ISPs get on board with this approach, spammers' markets will shrivel to where they are no longer profitable?

Now if only someone could come up with a way to brand a scarlet letter "S" on the foreheads of spammers, all would truly be sweetness and light. ...... maybe I could even stop using this ridiculous 'user name' .......

rooster

[StevenUnderwood]

  In a nutshell, this little ISP which serves Delta, B.C., Point Roberts and part of NW Washington, decided to invest MailGate and a palette of SURBL's (including sc) into their service package; no charge. (So far...)

27666[/snapback]

Does this little ISP provide for whitelisting the inevitiable addresses which become listed but from which you do wish to receive messages?

Do they reject the message back to the sender or drop it into the bit bucket?

Just trying to see how ISP's just now coming to the realization that spam is bad are implementing their wares.

[rooster]

Hi Steve;

WHITELIST

Yes they do. Accepting that I am viewing the offering for the first time, and haven't actually cycled through as a user yet, I do have a copy of the form for w/l entries in front of me. It closely resembles an OE, "New Address" blank. Unless I am mistaken, a user could maintain their address book on the site. There is a provision for importing and exporting addresses.

BITBUCKETS , BOUNCES & BLACKHOLES

The chap I spoke to was a bit coy about this; quite possibly unintentionally. He indicated that the word used 'in house' is: "Vanished".

He rehearsed the reasoning that, from an ISP's POV, Bouncing is counter-productive; so, I would rule that out. But he didn't seem to want to commit to using either bitbucket or blackhole.

I have some more info, but I'm waiting on a call back from a 'responsible person' before I bruit much more. What I do have is currently available via subscriber password only, the program being in a limited release stage at time of writing. Since they are, 'the good guys', I want to respect their right to control what and when and how details are revealed publicly.

Happy trails,

[rooster]

Hi again;

I just got confirmation that its ok to confess my ISP, <dccnet(d0t)com> and the status of their anti-spam/anti-virus investiture. It is in, "beta" release as I indicated above.

They do in fact allow subs to 'bitbucket' if we choose. What I took as 'coyness' above was probably just his way of enlightening an idiot, without drawing immediate attention to how slick he was doing it.

This is from their, "Options Menu".

<snip>

DCCNET WEBMAIL OPTIONS

Signatures

Edit or create email signatures.

Change Password

It is recommended you regularly change your password.

Personal Profile

undefined Holiday Settings

Setup an "out of the office" autoresponder or have your email forwarded to another account.

Mailbox Settings .

Create Rules to organize or archive your email once a day.

Trusted Sites <*r>

Any EMail which has references to images which are not on your trusted list are removed when being displayed.

Friends Settings <*r>

Verify that Email sent to you is coming from a person, not unwanted advertising (recommended).

<snip>

*Whitelist

It is ironic that I just installed K9 last Sunday. It works very well, I must say, and I was thoroughly happy with how it treated the brand of spam besetting me. The prospect of having porno-puke never sliming my inbox at all is, .... well, .. "One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." ... it just brings tears to my eyes, is all.

My hat is off to my dear buds at Delta Cable.

rooster

[rooster]

I just checked back to see where this thread was going and I noticed something Petzl wrote May 4th.

<snip>

."It is best never to use an email address provided by an ISP as they really are not interested in much except milking your bank account."

<snip>

Since this thread is treating what ISPs are up to lately, I'd like to hear what some other members think about this. Sweeping and damming generalizations like that seem rather harsh and sophomoric to me. But then, I 've been on-line for only a year, so I can't pretend to the evolved perspective enjoyed, apparently, by the writer.

Presumedly, my ISP incurs costs in plant & facilities, human resources and their own service fees & expenses to provide web and email services to their customers. Unless, of course, they occupy some etherial realm in the spirit world where such considerations don't apply. Which they don't; evidently.

It takes me about 30 seconds to get someone from their technical department on the phone 24/7 if I have a problem or, as is usually the case, a DAQ. I can drop into their office and chat if I've a mind to; they are only a few minutes away. If I have a new installation or want my access cable re-routed in my house, bingo; along comes a truck with a guy in it to install an outlet where the builders of the house had no expectation any reasonable person would ever want one.

I'm just not experiencing the 'milking effect' to which the author of the maledictory implies I must be suffering, or at least should be aware enough to complain intelligently the next time I have them on the phone at 2 a.m., helping me change an email account.

Happy trails,

rooster

[Jeff G.]

IIRC, petzl and fellow Australians are victims of some of the worst monopolistic bureaucracies in the data and telecom businesses, plus a governmental bureaucracy unable to reign them in. In theory, we should have it much easier in the US, especially with smaller ISPs that are not descendants of AT&T, and that therefore have had to earn their business.

[turetzsr]

I just checked back to see where this thread was going and I noticed something Petzl wrote May 4th.

<snip>

."It is best never to use an email address provided by an ISP as they really are not interested in much except milking your bank account."

<snip>

Since this thread is treating what ISPs are up to lately, I'd like to hear what some other members think about this. Sweeping and damming generalizations like that seem rather harsh and sophomoric to me. But then, I 've been on-line for only a year, so I can't pretend to the evolved perspective enjoyed, apparently, by the writer.

<snip>

27704[/snapback]

...While I have no hard evidence to back it up, I'd venture to say that your (rooster) experience with your ISP is an exception to the rule proposed by petzl. My perspective comes largely from reading other posts in these fora about the unresponsiveness and/ or cluelessness of ISP personnel with respect to spam. Having said that, I do not doubt for a minute that there are "good" ISPs out there, nor do I doubt that there exist other ISPs like yours. As a rule of thumb, however, and especially to those uninitiated to the world of ISPs, I would think that petzl's advice is far more often true than not.

[Lking]

Perhaps because of my generally good experience with my ISP over the last 10 years, I tend to agree with rooster.

IMHO Sweeping generalizations are wrong.

[Miss Betsy]

I think the key words are 'small local ISP' - I have had extremely good relations with my ISP (local) except that they won't use blocklists.

Large businesses tend to be bureaucratic and impossible to deal with - at least unless you know how to be assertive and even then it takes forever and lots of patience.

Miss Betsy

[rooster]

I think the key words are 'small local ISP' -

Lest I appear to be giving testimonials for my, "small local ISP", I am inclined to give a lot of weight to the fact that Dial-Up subscriptions have been attracting clients away from Cable IAPs over the last 2 - 3 years, at least, in this neck of the woods.

Some of the monthly AOL & etc., packages are cheaper than Cable if the monthly hours are not very high. This is the case for a large chunk of the adult, non-addicted, market. DSLs have been offering spam filtering and anti-virus protection as part of their package for some time. I gather this protection,"ain't all as its cracked up to be", but it is effective marketing anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'revenu side' component was more of an incentive to treat of spam & viruses than were the costs associated with, 'theft of services', loss of bandwidth and craptraffic.

The way I see it, if the subscriber base is growing steadily, those costs can always be passed along, (Hello Australia). If the number of subscribers is wavering or decreasing, then it is much harder to sell rate increases and cover increased costs without losing more custom. This would really hurt the, "small local ISP", wherever it might be.

I think it is just swell I can chat with my ISP as though I thought they deserved a knighthood for their efforts to thwart the evil black spammer, but I think the greater suasion lies with the inherent threat that we subscribers might opt for Dial-Up service if they don't do something about spam and viruses PDQ.

Happy trails,

[dra007]

I think we are being spammed.

[Jeff G.]

I think we are being spammed.

27987[/snapback]

I think you're right. Please see my first impression at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=27986. Thanks!