Daniel V. Reinhardt put forth on 7/21/2010 2:06 PM:
> Your average joe doesn't need to be running servers, and if you want business
> class services and abilities then pay for it.
Class warfare and/or financial means arguments are invalid in this discussion.
> Bandwidth costs money. You can'
"Jonathan Tripathy" wrote:
>
>> Why should home users get business class services at a fraction of the cost?
>> It
>> is quite ignorant to think that.
>Allowing legal data to pass without being monitored, snooped upon, or
>blocked due to the "type" of traffic, is not just for business class
>s
Time of death on Thu, Jul 22: 01:57:34 UTC
END OF THREAD. Please? :-)
--
Sahil Tandon
Charles Marcus wrote:
As I mentioned before, if they really feel that blocking port 25 blocks
spam,
You aren't serious? It isn't a matter of 'feeling'. Blocking port 25 for
residential users blocks TONS of SPAMBOTNETS. This isn't theory or
guesswork, it is a simple fact. It also relievs a huge
Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
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 ille
Why should home users get business class services at a fraction of the cost? It
is quite ignorant to think that.
Allowing legal data to pass without being monitored, snooped upon, or
blocked due to the "type" of traffic, is not just for business class
services.
Are you upset that you live in
I tried, I really did, but I just have to respond to this...
Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> an ISP should *never* monitor for abuse in the EU, and should
> *never* be made liable for what their customers do.
Correct - they should only be liable for abuse that they allow *their*
networks to relay from
Le Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:36:08 -0700 (PDT),
"Daniel V. Reinhardt" a écrit :
> 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.
You are driving consumers to that kind of access:
http://cult
* Rod Dorman :
> Have we gone far enough off the topic of Postfix yet for this thread to
> be declared dead?
Yes, especially since this was about SSL attacks.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hinde
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 16:36:08, Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
> ...
> 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
> authorit
On 2010-07-21 Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
> ISP's should be made responsible and accountable for what their users
> do.
No, they shouldn't.
> 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
- Original Message
> From: Jonathan Tripathy
> To: postfix users
> 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:
> >
> >
> >
> > - Ori
On 21/07/10 20:06, Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
- Original Message
From: Ansgar Wiechers
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
- Original Message
> From: Ansgar Wiechers
> 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 restric
Crap - sorry, meant that to go private...
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> 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.
1. Net neutrality is simply a 'proposed' priniciple, its meaning is not
set in stone, and probably never will
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
On 2010-07-21 11:16 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>> If you want that level of service, upgrade to a service that
>> provides it, and that will be at least minimally monitored for
>> abuse (it is in the ISPs best interest to avoid getting their IP
>> addresses on blacklists).
> Absolute nonsense. There
18 matches
Mail list logo
