Comcast

[gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org (Jerry Feldman)]

Certainly that type of written agreement is better than a general TOS. I
think in general, speakeasy has a more sophisticated client=E8le. My
concern is not port 25 but some of the ssh inbound ports I use. In any
case I would just as soon Comcast block both 80 and 25 so that I don't
get all that junk traffic.

On 11/12/2009 11:47 AM, David Hummel wrote:
> Which is meaningless since Comcast has and will randomly disable
> inbound access to TCP ports typically used to run servers (or any
> others they choose apparently).  They're not prohibiting servers,
> they're just not guaranteeing that they won't block access to them.
> With Speakeasy, I have written and verbal guarantees that they will
> not engage in this kind of activity.  I'm paying for internet access,
> not inbound/outbound access on ports X, Y, and Z...
>  =20


--=20
Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846