MWEB Uncapped Subscribers Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mweb Guy ive got a question regarding downloads :

Normally ( before the beginning of this month ) i used to download a 2 gig file, not http from 00:00 - 06:00 and it would be finished. I downloaded in the said time frame not to abuse the system and trying not to download in office hours, now the thing is speeds that normally went full speed at that times is now going between 17kbps - 80kbps and because of this it is not finished by 06:00, now then to my question... will it be a problem if i leave it running during during office hours untill it is finished or will i be abusing my service? as we all know shaping or whatever its called wont let my line run at full speed so i according to me its not 24/7 full line speed so it should not be a problem. Thanks i just need clarity on this one.
Im on a 1mb account.
 
Last edited:
it's a bit odd to have an upload rate of 40kb/s and a download rate of 10kb/s for torrents.i still have to wait more then a week for it to finish so i'll just leave it running for the week.
 
Andre Barnard said:
Mweb Guy ive got a question regarding downloads :

Normally ( before the beginning of this month ) i used to download a 2 gig file, not http from 00:00 - 06:00 and it would be finished. I downloaded in the said time frame not to abuse the system and trying not to download in office hours, now the thing is speeds that normally went full speed at that times is now going between 17kbps - 80kbps and because of this it is not finished by 06:00, now then to my question... will it be a problem if i leave it running during during office hours untill it is finished or will i be abusing my service? as we all know shaping or whatever its called wont let my line run at full speed so i according to me its not 24/7 full line speed so it should not be a problem. Thanks i just need clarity on this one.
Im on a 1mb account.
Click to expand...

Good Morning Andre, you need to download at line speeds over a prolonged period of time to be in breach of our AUP; I'm sure downloading a 2gig file would ok.
 
MWEB Guy said:
Please note that we have provided all our clients notifications regarding the change, please see the reason for the change below:

As a preventative measure to combat outbound spam and virus-generated email traffic, MWEB will no longer support the direct sending of mail on Port 25. All port 25 traffic will be silently redirected to our own relay servers so that we can effectively manage any malicious traffic, thereby protecting our network from blacklisting. Should you wish to send mail through an external relay server in future, you will have to use the mail submission port (587), which should be supported on all standards compliant relay servers. If your relay server does not support this, please mail the details to [email protected] and we will investigate an alternative solution for you.
Click to expand...

What utter tripe.

I have never ever received as much spam as when I had an MWEB email address
 
jeanres said:
I never got the notification..... and I still think this is bull****. I will be canceling.

I do understand why you would want to do this, but to request your clients to open up firewall ports on their mail servers, just because mweb want to secure people?
Click to expand...

Hi jeanres

I'm sorry if you find this frustrating. We did send the notification out quite some time ago when we began roiling out this solution. We implemented the solution quite gradually over our ip ranges to gauge the responses and to listen to any customer concerns that were raised. As it stands we have actually had very few complaints and I have only encountered one or two customers who were completely unable to find a solution on port 587, due to mail server software not being RFC compliant.

You need to bear in mind that you are operating on a consumer grade ADSL solution, not a product tailored specifically for business users and the redirection and blocking of port 25 is a common solution employed globally in the fight against spam.

Ultimately this is to your benefit as bot infected hosts are the primary culprits in terms of port 25 spam generation and it is critical for us to control this traffic to prevent the blacklisting of our dynamic IP ranges.
 
Will@MWEB said:
You need to bear in mind that you are operating on a consumer grade ADSL solution, not a product tailored specifically for business users
Click to expand...

In other words, go **** yourself. You are not important as a client.
 
Hi

Been with Mweb 4meg uncapped since middle March and im quite a high user. Though there has been lots of problems they have always been dealt with quick and easily from Mweb Guy.

Thanks Mweb

Kind Regards,
Jared
 
My uncapped mweb account has been bad for the last few days - particularly streaming video and WoW traffic. I found myself having to switch over my backup adsl account which kind of defeats the purpose of an uncapped account. It shouldn't be anything to do with my line given that when I switch adsl accounts - everything works smoothly.

EDIT:
I'm based in Durban if it makes a difference.
 
twixt said:
My uncapped mweb account has been bad for the last few days - particularly streaming video and WoW traffic. I found myself having to switch over my backup adsl account which kind of defeats the purpose of an uncapped account. It shouldn't be anything to do with my line given that when I switch adsl accounts - everything works smoothly.

EDIT:
I'm based in Durban if it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Good Morning twixt, are you referring to all streaming? Please also provide me more detail regarding your WoW problem and your MWEB email address in order for me to get a better understanding of your situation.
 
If my account is due to be cancelled end of this month, will I still be charged on the 1st? Can't remember the billing cycle..
 
Joker said:
If my account is due to be cancelled end of this month, will I still be charged on the 1st? Can't remember the billing cycle..
Click to expand...

Morning Joker, if your end date is scheduled for the 31st July, we should not charge you in August.
 
avert said:
In other words, go **** yourself. You are not important as a client.
Click to expand...

avert I'm really sorry if you choose to interpret my response in this manner as this really isn't the message I was trying to convey.

It is however as a customer important to have a clear understanding of the product that you chose and what it is and isn't designed to do.

I think perhaps also that you're underestimating the seriousness of the problem that spam and particularly bot-infected hosts present to a large sized ISP and how critical it is to combat this issue to safeguard the integrity and reputation of your network, which is to the benefit of all our customers.

We're also looking at mechanisms going forward whereby we can start taking a more active role in notifying customers that look like they have potential infections so we can curb the spread of these bots and help to minimize the impact on our customers.
 
Will@MWEB said:
avert I'm really sorry if you choose to interpret my response in this manner as this really isn't the message I was trying to convey.

It is however as a customer important to have a clear understanding of the product that you chose and what it is and isn't designed to do.

I think perhaps also that you're underestimating the seriousness of the problem that spam and particularly bot-infected hosts present to a large sized ISP and how critical it is to combat this issue to safeguard the integrity and reputation of your network, which is to the benefit of all our customers.

We're also looking at mechanisms going forward whereby we can start taking a more active role in notifying customers that look like they have potential infections so we can curb the spread of these bots and help to minimize the impact on our customers.
Click to expand...
Though I think instead of outright blocking outbound port 25 connections, it could have been dealt with a little bit better. For example inspect the start of the connection, if it detects authentication, let the connection through, if not then maybe block it. At least then most people wouldn't even have noticed the change.
 
Would this supposed new shaping target specific users or is it network related? I've been suffering nntp shaping for the last 2 days and was just wondering if I got relegated to the shaping bin during this time.
 
Tinuva said:
Though I think instead of outright blocking outbound port 25 connections, it could have been dealt with a little bit better. For example inspect the start of the connection, if it detects authentication, let the connection through, if not then maybe block it. At least then most people wouldn't even have noticed the change.
Click to expand...

Hi Tinuva

It's always going to be a question of tradeoffs when you implement a solution like this. We did investigate and debate a number of different approaches we could have taken to the issue.
As it stands we don't actually block port 25, we redirect it, pass the redirected traffic through the appropriate virus and spam scanning and then carry out normal delivery so in actual fact in many cases the redirect won't even be noticeable to many people.

It's only when someone is specifically trying to authenticate on port 25 that the redirect will fail as obviously your credentials don't authenticate on our servers.

The solution to this is quite simply to authenticate on a different port, which the majority of mail platforms these days support by default.

I have literally only encountered 2 customers who could genuinely not work around the issue. One of which is using a mail platform which seems to have a bug when authenticating on alternate ports and the other has a very odd problem with Backup MX capabilities and we are in the process of assisting him with coming up with a workaround (not really the type of usage one would expect from someone on a Consumer ADSL product, but we'll do what we can to assist him :) )
 
Tinuva said:
Though I think instead of outright blocking outbound port 25 connections, it could have been dealt with a little bit better. For example inspect the start of the connection, if it detects authentication, let the connection through, if not then maybe block it. At least then most people wouldn't even have noticed the change.
Click to expand...


Also

Greylisting


and more specifically, postgrey.
 
avert said:
Also

Greylisting


and more specifically, postgrey.
Click to expand...

We already have an RFC compliant greylisting solution deployed in our inbound mail environment. This doesn't combat the issue of infected hosts and spammers sending out directly on Port 25. The whole point of the redirection is to give us the capability to examine and filter that traffic so that we can minimize the damage it causes in the least disruptive manner possible.
 
Maybe a rule that limits the amount of connections per minute,second,15seconds.

iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set

iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 10 --hitcount 4 -j DROP

or something like that.

its effectively the same thing, just not so permanent.

edit: ugh what do i care
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X