Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:35:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups) Message-ID: <199909252335.QAA08631@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <19990925222536.A1470@lithium.scientia.demon.co.uk> from Ben Smithurst at "Sep 25, 1999 10:25:37 pm"
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. They already are, and you don't even know it. It may be at a major provider near you soon too. These are _NOT_ proxy boxes, these are the new generation of ``no change needed to client boxes'' web caches. > > 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. You've twisted it a bit far. Nothing in our policy says what another ISP's users can do, only what our customers can do. > Going further away from SMTP still, do you allow *any* traffic from > remote dial up hosts into your network? Yes. > Do you allow any traffic from your dial up hosts out of your network? Some... not all... but some... we do monitor _all_ of it though. Most of it simply gets counted in packets and bytes, other parts of it get source/dest logged as well. [I'm being specifically quite on this, as it is meaningless to discuss what we do and do not allow to occur, it after all is our business.] > 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. SMTP deserves very special attention due to the fact that the number 1 complaint of users of the internet is *SPAM*. SPAM is propogated via smtp. Do I need to say more? I can if I do. HTTP deserves special treatment as it consumes 76% of our upstream channel. Our ability to reduce the cost of rendering service is good common business practice. If you want to continue to pay $15/month for a service I can cost effeciency reduce to $8.00/month go right ahead, meanwhile I'll be chomping away at your heals. Now, since everyone knows about how to do this it won't really work that way, but it is the major force that makes HTTP _special_, and it is occuring in major ways at many ISP's, weither the customer knows it or not. You can add up ALL the other protocols and they don't even make a dent compared to HTTP traffic. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net 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?199909252335.QAA08631>