* Corey Edwards [Thu, 23 Aug 2007 at 13:32 -0600] > But not all ISPs are like that. My point is that saying "ISPs should > never block anything" or "don't do anything to my Internet > connection" (not necessarily what you're saying, but just an example), > it irritates me. There *are* times when it is responsible for an ISP to > block or filter traffic. I have cited two in other emails specific > examples and I won't bore you by repeating them.
Must...bite...tongue... Well, here goes. The two examples, worms and spams. It's been mentioned about spams, it's an email, and should be delivered as such. It's not up to the ISP to go snooping through all emails and deciding what is and isn't spam! Granted, if the ISP offers an email service to it's customers and includes spam filtering as part of that service then that's just fine. But blocking torrents is more akin to me running my own email server and the ISP sifting through all email transmitted accross their networks and filtering 'spam' from and to my private server. I think you'd agree this is bad practice. As for the worms thing, not so clear on that one. My gut says "leave it alone" and let the compromised computers reap the rewards of 'total' bandwidth throttling because they're saturating the network. This isn't just about what the ISP should do in my mind, I also think the ISP shouldn't be held _responsible_ for keeping viruses off of everyones computers. That's the job of the computer owner. If an ISP feels all altruistic and filters worms without pissing anyone off, more power to them, I guess. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
