----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Tripathy <jon...@abpni.co.uk>
> To: postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org>
> Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 8:23:31 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: ISP Blocking of port 25
>
>
> 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?).
ISP's should be made responsible and accountable for what their users do. They
hold the rights to the IP Space in use at the time, and such any traffic that
goes over it should be logged for later analysis by authorities if a user is
found to be doing something illegal. If I know an ISP openly allows their
users
to do anything they wanted then I will block all traffic from that ISP at my
firewalls, so that they cannot do any harm to my network. I block entire
nations from accessing several services on my network here at home. I also
block individual IP's from suspected people as well. If I see no traffic from
those IP's then I unblock them so that a legitimate user can access my network.
>
> 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.
Here is a prime example of wanting your cake and the ability to eat it tool.
>
> 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.
Why should home users get business class services at a fraction of the cost?
It
is quite ignorant to think that. Are you upset that you live in Europe where
bandwidth caps are rather small compared to ISP's in the US? Would you expect
the same service for bandwidth that a business class user gets for a cost at a
residential price? If you answer yes then you simply live in a dream world.
>
> As I mentioned before, if they really feel that blocking port 25 blocks
> spam,
>then a simple phone call should unblock this.
A simple phone call requesting a business class internet account and line will
also suffice if they want full control over their ports.
If I was an ISP all in bound connections to residential IP's would be denied.
Only http and https and submission would be allowed. To help conserve the cost
of bandwidth and to make more bandwidth available to people who want more.
Thanks,
Daniel Reinhardt
Website: www.cryptodan.com
Email: crypto...@yahoo.com
>
