On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Andrew Cox wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 AM, Andrew Cox wrote:
Sounds like a great idea in theory but would require OS support or
a dual-hotspot setup that provided for both options until support
was expected.
Until such time it's simply unworkable.
That and as mentioned in my previous post, the setup we have *just
works* for users who don't have the permissions to change off of a
static IP and use DHCP on their laptops.
And it just breaks for those of us who actually expect "internet
access" to mean
access to the internet, not just the web.
I never said that the *just works* method stopped users from being
able to use the internet. In fact catching users with bad IP address
settings works just as well as sending them a DHCP address.
I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my mail
server. I use TLS
and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many of the "just works" settings
in question
break these things badly.
Stop doing man in the middle attacks on my mail, or, expect me to be a
support headache.
It's just that simple.
I make a habbit of calling support and pushing the issue hard
through multiple
layers until I finally get a management denial, then, demand
refunds of my
connectivity charges every time I encounter this at a hotel.
I figure that the reason you guys deploy what "just works" as you
put it is because
it lowers your support costs, so, I do what I can to increase the
support costs of
delivering a broken internet.
We're in no way in the business of providing half-baked services and
likewise, I call up support for other providers if I end up with
just web access.
Good... As long as you're not MITM my stuff, then, I won't be calling
your support people.
Perhaps I misunderstood your explanation of what you do to port 25
traffic that "just works".
Owen
I encourage others to do the same.
Owen
