Sympatico AUP

[Joseph Kubik]

The IP header clause is so that NAT is a violation of the agreement at
most ISPs.
I've never seen one enforce it, but they do try to have the right to.
-Joseph-

On 7/5/05, Jon Thiele <jthiele-bux5bdj6uGJBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> all of these rules and policies (for rogers and sympatico) depend on the
> type of service you have.  i have a rogers business account - my agreement
> allows me to run servers.  i also pay more than a standard residential
> account...
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org [mailto:owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Lennart
> Sorensen
> Sent: July 5, 2005 9:38 AM
> To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
> Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Sympatico AUP
> 
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:55:29AM -0400, Ansar Mohammed wrote:
> > My apologies for posting this on a Linux list; but as I was setting up
> > FreeBSD on one of my laptops I had some issues getting remote access.
> > I just read this from the simpatico AUP. It seems they are enforcing it
> > through firewall policies. Does this mean that they can arbitrarily block
> > any inbound protocol/port?
> Many ISPs reserve the right to block ports at any time to stop worm
> breakouts and other sudden bandwidth eating problems.
> 
> > In addition to these Policies, while using your Sympatico account, you are
> > prohibited from conducting activities that include, but are not limited
> to:
> > *     Sharing of your Sympatico user account UserID and password for any
> > purpose, including, without limitation, for concurrent dial up login
> > sessions from the same Sympatico user account.
> Pretty sure they have the same kind of restriction, although they only
> use the login for email.  The cable modem doesn't use any login
> information.
> 
> > *     Causing an Internet host to become unable to effectively service
> > requests from other hosts.
> Hmm, that's pretty badly worded.  Does this mean if I have a 5Mbit
> connection and connect to an ftp server that has a 1.5Mbit link and
> download a file, thereby taking all the bandwidth, that I am violating
> the user agreement?  It would make it harder for that ftp server to
> start serving someone else (although it should after a short delay start
> a session with someone else and start sharing the available bandwidth).
> 
> > *     Running and/or hosting Server Applications including but not limited
> > to HTTP, FTP, POP, SMTP, Proxy/SOCKS, NNTP, )
> Rogers certainly says the same.
> 
> > *     Analyzing or penetrating an Internet host's security mechanisms.
> Many ISPs have that one
> 
> > *     Forging any part of the TCP/IP packet headers in any way.
> Hmm, I wonder what that means.  Probably not a problem in general.
> 
> > Does Rogers also have the same limitation?
> Certainly the important ones.
> 
> If you want less restrictions, you have to go with a smaller, less
> beurocratic ISP (typically DSL provider).
> 
> Lennart Sorensen
> 
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml