Comcast and SORBS

[invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
> Well, do the ISPs permit commercial use of non-commercial accounts?  

Why do I care if they do?  I'm not a business, and I'm not using it
commercially...

> business relationship between you and the ISP, which is bound by the terms
> of the contract.  If the contract does not specify it, they're under no
> obligation to provide it.  What you're saying is that there's a need for an
> ISP which will provide a raw connection and leave you alone.  IIRC,
> SpeakEasy is like that - and they charge a little more than the big ISPs.

And when I return to the US permanently, I'll do my darndest to make
sure I live in their service area.  

> But you can't complain that if a suitable partner isn't there, that the
> unsuitable partner must conform to your business needs and not theirs.

Yes, you can, and you should.  Businesses exist to provide YOU with
services and products.  If they're not offering what you want, you
should complain.

As for comcast, even if their TOS prohibit running servers, they
tacitly allow it (at least until you become a problem for them).  So
all those arguments about blocking mail based on my TOS are
ridiculous...  What my service provider does and does not allow me to
do is between me and them, and is no one else's business.

Arguments based on blocking spam from abusing parties are more valid,
but this is still the wrong solution, and needlessly penalizes many
legitimate users.

> And by the way - the additional $$ for a statis IP for RCN (on a residential
> account) is $20/month.  That's $240 a year.  If your business is so close to
> the line that you must not only commit fraud (run a business on a home line,
> in violation of the contract) but also cannot afford the additional
> $240/year, perhaps the more important thing is to review your business plan
> and not rail against your provider.

I have said repeatedly that I am not a business.  I have no business.
I don't want a business, and I'm not using my service to run a
business.  It is for my own personal use.  If I had a business that
generated money, I would have no problem paying for business-class
service.  That's not what we're talking about here.  I send maybe a
couple hundred messages per month from my personal server to
communicate with my personal friends, and mailing lists for my
personal interests.  There is no business matter involved in any way.

> > Idealistically speaking, it shouldn't be that way.
> >
> Sure, I'll agree with that 100%.  Ideally, we should also be able to have
> open relays, 

No, we shouldn't.  This is a relic of a day when this was neccessary
due to the Internet being poorly connected.  That's no longer the
case, and site-to-site mail delivery is basically universally
available.  Under such conditions, open relays provide no benefit, but
do provide lots of opportunity for abuse.

> truly anonymous FTP, etc.

To the extent that the IP protocols allow it, we do.  Use a computer
that can't be traced back to you, and it's as anonymous as you can
get.  Not sure what your point is.

> People abuse networks - either purposefully, or by proxy.  If a
> specific provider chooses not to keep their part of the neighborhood
> clean, I'll make sure that they don't pollute my end of the
> neighborhood.

Most of the computers on comcast's networks which send out spam are
compromised, working on the behalf of criminals.  I'm sure there is a
solution here, but blocking EVERYBODY is the wrong one.

> It is not the *only* solution, but it is a very real, and effective, one.

It might be effective now, but if it becomes effective enough, the
spammers will just move onto other networks in other localities that
are more spam-friendly.  Ultimately, this is not a real solution.

Please see Rich Braun's excellent post about business monopoly
interests and the responsibilities the public can and should be able
to place on businesses to meet their needs.  I'm signing off this
thread, as it has already consumed far too much of my time.  =8^)

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20041124/8248ddd7/attachment.sig>