On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Mike Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mick wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dan Farrell wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:51:42 +0000 > >> > >> Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Monday 10 March 2008, Dan Farrell wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:55 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> Mike Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> Comcast? > >>>> I was on comcast for a long time (2.5 yrs) and never had a problem > >>>> like this. They might have blocked port 25 and squelched my > >>>> bittorrenting at times, but never anything like this. Of course, > >>>> ymmv. > >>> IIRC they also block port 80 for sure on their retail accounts. They > >>> don't want the average punter to run a webserver at home. > >> Even when they blocked port 25 for me bidirectionally (evidently > >> sending 6 gigs through that port made me look like a spammer, even if > >> it was all to the same address ;) ), and I called security assurance > >> and they listed that among all the open ports I wasn't allowed on a > >> residential account, even then, they still didn't block port 80 (or 26, > >> 22, 21, 110, 993, or any other port!). > > > > Hmm, I don't know . . . The particular address I was trying to connect > was > > definitely blocked. Other than not beeing able to connect with a > browser, > > nc, httping and tcptraceroute confirmed it). Could it be an > area/account > > specific block perhaps? When I questioned the owner he said that this > was > > common practice and that his ISP does not allow webservers to run. > > When I was on Comcast, the only ports they blocked outright, > that I found, were mail related. Presumably this was a spam > prevention measure more than anything else. > > However, they did *monitor* other common ports for traffic. > Occasionally I'd put some local service or another on my > firewall during development, or for testing, or whatnot. If > it happened to be on port 80, 443, or 21, I'd usually get a > nasty-gram from then within a day reminding me of their AUP. > > --Mike > > -- > gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > > Who knows their Sandvine equipment is horrendous. But let's not get off topic. Collin: it may not be a "5-second rule". It may just be cutting it off after a certain amount of traffic has passed based on the protocol/port used. But I'm just speculating. Let's hear what fire-eyes has to say. -- - Mark Shields
