Sympatico AUP

[John Macdonald]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:15:35PM -0400, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> James Knott wrote:
> > Also, I get the impression that while servers are prohibited, they only
> > react, if those servers are causing significant loads on the network.
> 
> Sure they'll notice excessive usage. And last I checked, Rogers had two
> active network scanners looking for open mail, news and web ports. You
> should be able to find their IPs with a quick google. I used to get
> scanned at least once a week.
> 
> I happen to agree with their position. If you want to run servers, lease
> a box in co-lo or buy a service package which supports it.

So, you figure that people who want to and can run their own
services without using the ISP handholding should pay business
rates?  Double the price for not using *their* services?

My "server" is simply an SMTP server so that I can use my own
domain name for email and not have to track down every person
who sends me email and inform them whenever I change ISPs.
(I've only changed ISPs once so far - from Bell/Sympatico
to eol.ca a few years back when, after 5 years of service,
Sympatico started blocking my incoming mail without any warning,
and compounded the problem when their service personnel told
me that they were not doing so.)

Oh, and I also have provided an ftp "server" in the past at
times when I wanted to transfer files to/from work.

All of my "servers" together for a year provide less bandwidth
usage than a single ISO download.

Blocking servers, from my point of view, is punishing a large
group of customers for the sins of a few, rather than figuring
out how to block just the actual problem cases.

-- 
--
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