Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:25:37 +0100 From: Ben Smithurst <ben@scientia.demon.co.uk> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups) Message-ID: <19990925222536.A1470@lithium.scientia.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199909251959.MAA08225@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <4.2.0.58.19990925133024.044fb290@localhost> <199909251959.MAA08225@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> It is however based upon reality in the world of using web caches
> (which I don't see anyone objecting to) at ISP's to increase web
> access speed.
I have no objection to web caches, no. I *do* have an objection to
having all traffic out of my machine *forced* to go through the ISP's
web cache. If I want to use it, I know how to configure my software to
use it (and I do use it), I don't need the ISP doing that for me.
I suppose you configure your web servers to deny all requests from dial
up hosts. If not, why not? After all, under your policy all users should
be using their ISP's web cache.
Going further away from SMTP still, do you allow *any* traffic from
remote dial up hosts into your network? Do you allow any traffic from
your dial up hosts out of your network? If so, I'd like to know why you
think SMTP and HTTP deserve special treatment, while the services you
don't filter don't apparently deserve this treatment.
--
Ben Smithurst | PGP: 0x99392F7D
ben@scientia.demon.co.uk | key available from keyservers and
| ben+pgp@scientia.demon.co.uk
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990925222536.A1470>