Sympatico AUP

[Andrew Hammond]

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

John Macdonald wrote:
> 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?

Yes. Or find a provider who offers a package you would find appropriate.
Breaking a contract is never a good idea. Doing it with demonstrable
intent and forethought is plain stupid.

> 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.)

So... they blocked inbound to port 25, something which according to your
contract should always be bogus traffic, and you complain? I agree that
their techs should have been more clueful on the subject, but there's
only so much you can fit into a script-reader.

> 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. 

So you figure instead of putting a simple rule into their firewall and
dealing with the problem in a somewhat pro-active way, they should
dedicate system or network admin time to chasing down stuff after it's
already caused problems?

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of people who set up
servers do _not_ know what they're doing. Most of them don't even know
they've set up a server. They do not spend sufficient time securing and
maintaining them. I'm actually glad to finally see the larger ISPs start
trying to address this issue.

Blocking servers is actually addressing the needs of their target
demographic effectively. The typical point and click user doesn't want
to run servers and shouldn't either. Since you're not part of the target
demographic, it's unsuprising your needs aren't being met very well.
However, consider that the economies of scale which make high speed
internet is so cheap exist precisely because there are so many "end users".

- --
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

iD8DBQFCy2Amgfzn5SevSpoRAqtoAJ9KkNHdaybtbhgMvAe56Fke9tlcKwCeM7WG
GikgIOBNCPlwrxPfxdJmJJY=
=YnUP
-----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