From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 28 11:26:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C86416A41C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:26:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerard-seibert@suscom.net) Received: from smtp4.suscom.net (smtp4.suscom.net [64.78.119.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C674F43D53 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:26:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerard-seibert@suscom.net) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.suscom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EC015012C; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp4.suscom.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.suscom.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21632-01-29; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (ip148.217.susc.suscom.net [216.45.217.148]) by smtp4.suscom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3482F1500DF; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:26:11 -0400 From: Gerard Seibert To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: Gerard@smtp4.suscom.net, Seibert@smtp4.suscom.net In-Reply-To: <20050628070248.4317516A421@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20050628070248.4317516A421@hub.freebsd.org> Message-Id: <20050628071205.B5A1.GERARD-SEIBERT@suscom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.21.03 [en] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at suscom.net Cc: Garrett Cooper Subject: Re: Still trying to get my site up! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: gerard-seibert@suscom.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:26:10 -0000 On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:43:08 -0700 Garrett Cooper wrote: > > I say get rid of the ISP and find a better one. Any ISP that actively >blocks port 80-a port which should be allowed as a backup port for >programs-isn't really setup correctly and I doubt that they have all >of your best interests in mind when making decisions. >-Garrett ********** Reply Separator ********** Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:12:05 AM Getting a new ISP is not really an option. They are my local cable company. Ipso facto, they have a de facto monopoly on cable in this region. I cannot simply shop for another service. Actually, they are a pretty good company. Their service is good, and they are willing to work with me on most issues. They will even sell me a static IP is I am willing to fork over $25 additional each month. In addition to port 80, they also block port 25. This sort of behavior is becoming an industrial standard now with cable companies. The blocking of port 25 has to do with the 'worm' problem a few years ago. The port 80 blocking is more attuned to greed I believe, but that is pure speculation. -- Gerard E. Seibert gerard-seibert@suscom.net Q. What is the definition of irreconcilable differences? A. When she is melting down her wedding ring to cast it into a bullet.