On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 12:41:33PM +1100, Ron Stodden wrote:
> One good reason is that to do so would violate the service contract
> of people with machines connected to the internet via a residential
> service cable modem. If the cable company discovers you are running
> a server (and they do this by regular port scans, not by traffic
> analysis) they will cancel your service contract.
I don't think the cable companies care about ssh. I think they care a lot more
about anonymous ftp and http servers.
For example the Acceptable Use Policy of @Home
(http://www.home.com/support/aup/) only prohibits the following servers:
* NNTP
* MAIL e.g. SMTP
* HTTP
* FTP
* DHCP
* "mult-user interactive forums"
* "host shell accounts"
Furthermore, @Home says in the AUP that they don't do scans for violations of
their policy at all but they do reserve the right to do so.
Road Runner in their Acceptable Use Policy does not prohibit servers
whatsoever (http://help.rr.com/repository/620/e37_rr_acceptableuse_policy.html)
While I realize these are only US providers. Considering that telnet is
shipped open as it is now, I really can't believe that the providers would have
any greater problem with sshd being open as well.
I do not believe that it is a distributions responsibility to cater to the
facist Acceptable Use Policies of a few providers at the expense of what the
vast majority of users need. Users of these providers should shoulder the
responsibility to determine what services they are not allowed to run and then
turn it off.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
Maslow's Maxim: If the only tool you have is a hammer,
you treat everything like a nail.
