Is anyone else having issues getting to http://www.anz.co.nz or
http://www.anz.com (- see attached for what is served up here)?
Especially Telecom-fibre-connected parties? Funnily enough there's no
problem when connecting from an Xtra dial-up - work that out...
There are no known phishing-redirect attempts or similar in progress
for ANZ are there?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The reason why paradise.net said it was not possible at the time was because for two reasons:
1) Our MTA at the time did not support OMDR or any similar features to achieve delivery of mail using OMDR or other features to acheive the same means.
2) Later we developed our own Dynamic SMTP MTA which delivers mail to customer's dynamically assigned IP address after verifying that we indeed have the correct customer on the expected RAS port.
OMDR requires quite a bit of compliance from the customer point of view. Our own Dialup SMTP solution required very little support from the customer's point of view other than having an SMTP server listening on their dialup connection.
I'm thinking that this day in age with DDNS and broadband connections becoming far more relevant that SMTP delivery to dynamic IP addresses is becoming less of an issue. But then perhaps I'm mistaken.
Senior Systems Administrator
IS: Unix Systems
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Lang [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2006 20:59
> To: Simon
> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] Port 25
> Dare I suggest something worth talking about amongst the recent
> flaming.... but....
> Some time ago, I was asking about ISP's that provided ODMR
> services. RFC
> 2645 (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=2645). Can't recall
> where that thread went - someone from paradise saying something about
> them not wanting to do it 'cause it would make them insecure or
> something... Didn't make sense at the time.
> In any case, this would appear to be to be a good solution.
> The RFC has
> been around for a long time (1999), and it appears that there may be
> more than just a couple of clients/servers.
> But, I still can't find anyone that supports it. Any clues who might?
> Anyone from ISP land that want's to create an ODMR service?
> Don't need a
> static IP, should work with everyone etc. etc.
> Cheers -
> Simon wrote:
> > Just a quick email to the list to find out what other service
> > providers are doing regarding XTRA blocking port 25 when
> your company
> > does not provide internet connections, so many of your customers are
> > using xtra as a service provider but not for other services wuch as
> > mail.
> > Many of my customers are XTRA customers, but are also vodafone etc
> > etc, so an external autheticated mail server is a huge
> bonus for them.
> > Use secure port?
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> > _______________________________________________
> > NZNOG mailing list
> > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
> NZNOG mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.5 (Build 5050)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In message <444AD782.3090505(a)saarinen.org>, Juha Saarinen writes:
>Is this affecting NZ at all? Ihug customers?
You realise that event was Friday? Internode is Australian based,
in Adelaide IIRC, and their times are about 2.5 hours behind ours.
And yes, some transit out of New Zealand was also affected on Friday
afternoon, showing unusually high latency to the US. It was resolved
by Saturday morning.
Kia ora Wietse,
[NZNOGgers - Please read this email and the next before you flame me. I
won't see the flames until very late tomorrow :) I hope to not be
flamed over this. Yes I deserved it earlier, I'll let you have that one.]
You're about to be Cc-ed on a tale from me to the NZNOG mailing list.
It involves the word Postfix a fair bit, Postfix rocks. Thank's for all
the hard work you've put in to your MTA, it's a gem. I won't build an
MTA with anything else, it suits me.
So, yeah. Thanks. I hope you enjoy the soon to follow tale. Heck,
maybe you won't, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things ;)
Xtra is planning to block port outbound 25 outbound, no doubt a few
other xSPs will follow suite at around the same time.
Big business is what it is. The people that work at are good people. I
personally like to support the underdog and I get on my soapbox
occasionally. Xtra is New Zealand's largest ISP, a monolithic monopoly
that's in bed with Microsoft ( www.xtramsn.co.nz ) and it's got it's
hand playing very heavily in Parliment. What Xtra does impacts New
Zealands Internet very heavily. This email is a request for your
advice, for me personally and I suppose (as is in the subject heading) a
request on behalf of NZNOG. I hope it is well recieved.
I was wondering if you might perhaps take the time to chime in and let
the NZNOG community know that blocking port 25 isn't a _solution_. One
of the root motivators for implementing the block is the sheer number of
their customers that have computers which run "rooted" Microsoft OSes.
My angle is that blocking port 25 will not _solve_ the root cause of the
problem. I believe that Xtra are in a good position to put some
pressure on Microsoft with regards to rolling out a much better
_solution_ , for example:
Transparently scanning customer email for virus / blatant-spam related
content. Then identifying and contacting those customers, to sort out
their issues. Something that could be fairly easily implemented - it
would just cost money, probably lots of it. Xtra and Microsoft are in
a good position with regards to finance, as we all know. And this
could be opted out of (easily), so the clueful can carry on living
under the radar (the pleasant side of the radar). The devil is in the
I can imagine it'd be a logistical nightmare. However, I know the above
is possible, I scripted something in Perl to do just this, when I worked
for Wave Internet (a local ISP). The script did the above (example)
automatically minus the automated contacting of customers, that was done
manually but the script notified the support team of who was an
offender. It also just scanned the Postfix's logs, not port 25 outbound
for the entire op etc. I wasn't that savvy at the time.
It would not just help the problem it would also curb the expense that
is passed on to the customer. I've talked to a handful of customers
while at Wave on the helpdesk that had footed thousands of dollars in
bills due to trojans etc (Porn dialers, mass mailers etc). Those poor
souls didn't get much sympathy from any party, just our condolences, it
was the Telco that won in the end.
I'm sure everyone on the NZNOG list would value your input on this
issue, some may disagree with you. I know some have disagreed with me
:) Heck, you may even support the blocking of port 25, though I suspect
not. Perhaps you won't, it doesn't matter. There's no harm in
asking for the advice of someone that's well respected in the MTA
I've done a list subscribe request, on your behalf, to make it easier
for you if you'd like to make a difference - either for or against my
opinion which is: "Blocking port 25 is bad for the Internet (as a
whole).". I know my initial post (to NZNOG) wasn't recieved too well.
The thread started here:
My rant here:
I broke a few of the NZNOG rules and ruffled some feathers. Oh well,
them's the breaks when the soapbox comes out :)
A reminder. NZNOGgers - Please read the next email before you flame me.
I won't see the flames until very late tomorrow :) Wietse, the next
email from me will provide even more background.
I can imagine that we'd all look forward to hearing your opinion on the
matter. Thanks for your time so far. Perhaps we'll hear from you :)
If you happened to have already deleted the subscribe request:
 Sorry, I don't currently have time for _lots_ of list reading etc
just a few key announcements and NZNOG, where I typically lurk. I don't
*know* your view, I'd typed up to  before going "duh, Google...". So
I carried on.
Looks like another phishing attempt you may want to block...
*From:* Chase Security Department[SMTP:CONFIRM@CHASE.COM]
*Sent:* Friday, April 21, 2006 3:43:58 AM
*To:* Knowledge Module Information; Sales
*Subject:* *** Security Issues ***
*Auto forwarded by a Rule*
Dear JPMorgan Chase Customer,
Due to recent fraudulent activities on some of JPMorgan Chase online
accounts we are launching a new security system to make
JPMorgan Chase online accounts more secure and safe. Before we can
activate it we will be checking all JPMorgan Chase online accounts to
the authenticity of the holder.
We will require a confirmation that your account has not been
stolen or hacked. Your account has not been suspended or frozen.
To confirm your account status please
-complete the required information to authenticate and reset your
-make sure your account balance has not been changed
-make sure your details have not been changed
-review recent transactions in your account history for any
If you find any type of suspicious activities please contact us
Please include in your message your account number, your account name
and the unauthorized transfer date & time.
Please do not reply to this message. For any inquiries, contact Customer
JPMorgan Chase Copyright (c) 2006
Just a quick email to the list to find out what other service
providers are doing regarding XTRA blocking port 25 when your company
does not provide internet connections, so many of your customers are
using xtra as a service provider but not for other services wuch as
Many of my customers are XTRA customers, but are also vodafone etc
etc, so an external autheticated mail server is a huge bonus for them.
Use secure port?
Jonathan Brewer wrote:
> I'd appreciate it if you kept it off the list.
Why? If people stopped emailing me personally I'd have no reason to
reply. Get the point? Keep it on the list.
Donald/Simon, please kill this thread. Things have gotten personal for
some reason that I don't care to understand.
Alastair Johnson wrote:
> Are you familiar with the term "FUD"? Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. By
> making a statement "At a cost, I imagine", you start spreading
> uncertainy and doubt. It most certainly isn't fact.
Correct. It most certainly isn't fact.
> That's one person's opinion, against many. Do a little research.
I think you'll find it's many verses many. And yes, it was my opinion
regarding a fairly hefty operation issue for New Zealand's NOCish type
people. Well, my first post was.
James Clark wrote:
>> I'll repeat, keep it on the list.
People don't get the hint around here?
> The reply was sent off-list for a reason. You can be a decent person
> and accept that, or you can prove yourself more of a plonker by not
> doing so.
I will heed your wise words...
Goodnight gentlemen. I'm leaving it there, I've no interest in these
non operational issues. I have better things to do, I'll go back to
being silent. (I will not respond, so don't bother emailing me)
p.s. I'm guessing someone will bite and send me another unsubscribe.
Donald, does that constitute harrassment of some sort? The link doesn't
seem to work:
Steve Kurzeja <steve(a)a.geek.nz> thanks for the "shut your pie-hole", it
Alastair Johnson wrote:
> James Clark wrote:
>> At a cost I imagine. CBF researching it.
> Please don't be spreading FUD and turning the list into something less
> than useful.
FUD? That would be me saying "You know they charge for it", I CFDed
researching it - if I wanted to know I would. I don't. If you want to
know, research it.
The issue is Xtra are blocking port 25. That is bad and not good, all
at the same time.
I'll repeat, keep it on the list.