On 21/07/10 20:06, Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Ansgar Wiechers<li...@planetcobalt.net>
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 12:51:34 PM
Subject: Re: OT: ISP Blocking of port 25
On 2010-07-21 Charles Marcus wrote:
[ lots of words ]
Charles, any ISP who restricts network traffic (with or without packet
inspection) is clearly violating net neutrality. Period. I suggest you
look up the term.
There may be valid reasons for an ISP to do this, but that doesn't
change one thing about the violation. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning."
--Joel Spolsky
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if i am willing to pay more to get more then I
should those people who pay for a residential account shouldn't get business
class or enterprise services. I once used Comcast, but had their Gold Services
Contract allowing me to run my own servers on my connection, and of course that
came with a heavier price tag as well. It was like 10 to 20 bucks more for
that. I now have Verizon FiOS which delivers me 35Megabits up and down which a
residential person can get for a fraction of the cost, but i have a block of 5
static IP's and unlimited bandwidth and data transfers not to mention I can run
my own servers such as DNS, E-Mail, HTTP, HTTPS, and what have you. I pay 140
bucks a month for that plan.
So in my opinion net neutrality is a complete joke.
Your average joe doesn't need to be running servers, and if you want business
class services and abilities then pay for it. Bandwidth costs money. You can't
have your cake and eat it too.
Thanks,
Daniel Reinhardt
Clearly some people here are either a) ISPs or b) bitter that they got
ripped of because a residential service can run mail servers :)
I don't know what international laws are like, but an ISP should
*never* monitor for abuse in the EU, and should *never* be made liable
for what their customers do. This would just ruin the industry! I can't
believe people actually think that ISPs should be legally responsible
for something someone else does! This is me saying that from the point
of view of an EU citizen. I appreciate that views around the world will
differ, but in the EU, ISPs are not responsible for the tens of
thousands of customers they have - it's infeasible and would put blame
where it isn't due (Does it really benefit society to throw the director
of an ISP in jail, vs the spammer him/herself?).
BTW: I'm not a spammer, just someone who believes in a free internet.
Free doesn't mean illegal spam-ridden, and also doesn't mean cost-free.
And I'm definitely pro for the fact that Spam is illegal.
And also, I do believe that a business-class service should have an SLA
which covers better speed guarantees and uptime. But it should not
unblock more ports compared to a residential service.
As I mentioned before, if they really feel that blocking port 25 blocks
spam, then a simple phone call should unblock this.
