Sympatico AUP

Ansar Mohammed ansarm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Wed Jul 6 03:51:48 UTC 2005


I guess the issue is that there was no indication from simpatico that there
were these restrictions on their DSL service.
Also, they are actually BLOCKING the connections.. it is not just in their
policy.

Does rogers also block these ports?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org [mailto:owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Hammond
Sent: July 5, 2005 5:16 PM
To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Sympatico AUP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Knott wrote:
> Ansar Mohammed wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
>>    * Causing an Internet host to become unable to effectively service
>>      requests from other hosts.
>>    * Running and/or hosting Server Applications including but not
>>      limited to *HTTP, FTP, POP, SMTP, Proxy/SOCKS, NNTP*, )
>>    * Analyzing or penetrating an Internet host's security mechanisms.
>>    * Forging any part of the TCP/IP packet headers in any way.
> 
> 
>>Does Rogers also have the same limitation?
> 
> 
> With Rogers, you're not supposed to share with 3rd parties, however,
> that concurrent dial up is curious.  If you have mulitple e-mail IDs on
> your account, are the other family members supposed to take turns
> dialing in?
>
> Causing problems for an internet host, penetrating hosts (without
> permission only) and forging IP headers should be enforced by all ISPs.
>  I wonder why they specified TCP, instead of saying just IP.  Are you
> allowed to do that with UDP?

TCP/IP could be considered an either/or. Since TCP & UDP packets are by
definition IP packets, this is a pretty broad definition.

> As for servers, Rogers also bans them, but they appear to be making a
> distinction between "servers" and remote access to your own network.

No. They have given examples of servers you are not to run, but the
prohibition is clearly "not limited to" these. That they haven't
mentioned ssh or vnc is no reason to assume that they're not included,
despite wording to the contrary.

> 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.

- --
Andrew Hammond    416-673-4138    ahammond-swQf4SbcV9C7WVzo/KQ3Mw at public.gmane.org
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
CB83 2838 4B67 D40F D086 3568 81FC E7E5 27AF 4A9A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCyvh3gfzn5SevSpoRAr1mAJ94mkaIdsnROshQ8RyMGMH/kiFaDQCgmIid
0J30k7o6403YBPDhrqj/aFM=
=Wn4j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20050705/166b1549/attachment.bin>


More information about the Legacy mailing list