Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 04:32:50 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: ARG!!! 450 Client host rejected: cannot find your hostnam Message-ID: <15048.18242.399134.323193@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <006501c0bb4e$e4f24620$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <15048.6365.713373.341764@guru.mired.org> <006501c0bb4e$e4f24620$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Moved to -chat] Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mike Meyer [mailto:mwm@mired.org] > >I'd gladly change services, if I could find someone that's > >better. Since I can't, I use what's available, and work around the > >crap as much as I can. > I'm not talking about folks like you who have no choice and are in the > grip of a monopoly. That's not representative of the majority of users > that have problems. I'm not so sure of that. Clearly, I'm in the minority for what I expect from an ISP - which is why ISPs that don't offer them can prosper. If the majority of users who have those expectations aren't shopping around - well, that would surprise me. I'd expect that having higher standards would lead to trying to have them met. > >That's true - but to get a server that's managed the way I want it > >managed, *those* are the two choices I've got. I don't need much > >bandwidth. I do need recent versions of Apache, Postgres, and Python - > >as well as those things configured to my specifications. Even offering > >to install a modern database server - meaning one with transaction > >support - gratis was turned down. > The point was that between those two choices your going to pay a lot more > for the colocation, than for putting a server at the end of a circuit > to an ISP - and that is perfectly fair. Yup. But the two choices I have are using a service whose providers you said should be taken out and shot, or paying a lot more $'s for a a lot of service that I don't really need. I consider taking away one of my options to be a bad thing - which was my point. > >I didn't go find some open relay. I asked my ISPs if they had a > >solution to a problem I had as a PAYING customer, and one of them - > >the most competent of the bunch, if you ask me - replied with a host > >name for an open relay. They understand that there are problems for > >which an open relay is a perfectly valid solution, so they run > >one. They do go to great lengths to keep it hidden. > How could they possibly keep a true open relay hidden? Scanning for them > is rediculously simple. I would be surprised if they had a true open > relay that wasn't listed in MAPS by now. More likely they have a relay > that permits blind relaying from any of their IP number groups. I have no idea - I didn't ask. As far as I could tell, it was a true open relay; I used it from dynamic IP addresses assigned by no fewer than four ISPs besides them. It's not currently listed in the maps database, the host is still there, and still forwarding mail from my current IP address - which they didn't assign. Possibly they detected port scans - either of that IP address, or across their blocks - and block them out somehow. These people ARE the most competent ISP I've dealt with recently. > >doesn't provide. I obviously can't spend a couple of hours every day > >looking for a better ISP. I do do that whenever I get pissed at mine, > >or have to deal with the problems at hand - which amounts to about > >once a quarter. > Of course not, but it's going to take less time for you to find a different > ISP than for you to file a lawsuit against your current one, which is why > lawsuits like the OneMain class action just drive me up the wall. I have to agree about that one - I personally hate bringing lawyers into things, as they generally just drain money from everyone involved. I'd do what you suggested - just cancel service and go elsewhere, even if it meant taking having to go with dynamic IP and a dynamic dns server. If they were sufficiently anal about it, I might drag them into small claims court to recover some costs, but even that's not likely. > With this defeatist attitude, if I was looking to site a new ISP that > would offer the services you want, why would I possibly be induced to > put it in your area? That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes, but it seems you're the one with the defeatist attitude, because you've run into users that aren't willing to switch. I'm perfectly willing to switch, and have done so more than once. I just need the services to be available. Based on the number of email address changes I get, I'd say a fair percentage of people behave like I do. > >Here, I don't have those choices. Until three months ago, I had one > >(count-em: one, uno, ein, 1) choice for broadband access: cable > >modems. Neither ISDN nor DSL were available. > You couldn't be in _that_ low density an area or you wouldn't have > cable - they don't run cable TV out to the farm. This area *was* farms 10 years ago. It's now farms, housing developments and apartment complexes. FWIW, the only cable TV I use is for local channels, because that lowers my ISP bill. > > The cost of a leased line > >this far from the POP was comparable to colocation. > Well, now that's something to consider. If your business is based > on good Interent connectivity, isn't it easier to move Mohammed to > the Mountain, than to try to do it the other way? Yes, but cable modems + dynamic dns solve the problem, and cost a *lot* less. Good connectivity isn't a requirement, it just makes things work better. Enough better that a couple of hundred a month is fine if I get to use that connectivity as well (i.e. - a lot of my work involves connecting from where I am to a client's machine). Colocation doesn't work for that, and leased line fees were to high. > DSL showed up last > >quarter; when I checked on it, I had two DSL choices. Neither one > >offered a static IP, so why switch? > Did you even _tell_ the DSL providers that if either of them offered a > static > IP that you would switch? How are they going to know about potential > customers > if you don't tell them? Fair point. Both had other problems as well; one I told, one I didn't. > >Personally, I'd like to live on the land my great grandparents > >homesteaded, but the choices for broadband there are even worse than > >they are here. > You do bring up one interesting issue - your running a business that's > dependent on good Internet access, yet you don't live in an area _with_ > good Internet access. Not quite true. I'm running a business that works best with good internet connectivity and a website that I manage myself. It's not a requirement, and I worked without it for most of last year. One current client is involved in a business that needs to be outside of any city limits (their work at times involves releasing various flammable gases into the air and igniting them, which most city jurisdictions frown upon). The best they can get is DirectPC, even though they are located at an airport and about 2000 ft from a major cross-country WAN link. I don't need anything beyond a phone line for the work I do for them. > Now, I've looked at your webpage and I don't see that you have an office > of people to manage, so I'll assume your working out of your house and > I'll say that there's many reasons that people purchase private homes, and > I can understand that usually they don't consider good Internet connectivity > when doing so. Correct. I relocated for personal reasons. Internet connectivity wasn't even a consideration. > However, office space for businesses is an entirely different matter, let > me relate a short story that is something along these lines, > and illustrates how stupidly some people consider things. I'm familiar with office space issues, and have looked into renting office space with good connectivity at times. But being able to work from home is more important for what I do than good connectivity. [Story of business idiocy deleted.] Yup - people think just because something costs $X in one place, it should cost $X everywhere. Things just aren't that way. I expected poor internet connectivity when I moved; I arranged to put my web site at an ISP until things settled down and I decided what to do. What I didn't expect was that it was *much* cheaper to maintain the dialin account and web server at my old ISP than to purchase similar web services - with or without a dialup account - locally. Switching to a cable modem and dynamic DNS actually raised my costs slightly. I discussed the issue with a number of local ISPs, but the only one that showed any interest got bought at about that time, so that fizzled as well. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15048.18242.399134.323193>