Re: comcast routing problems
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: > Yes, my router is returning a hop count exceeded. > There isn't much I can do about it. all of my traffic is sent to a dr > assigned by dhcp. If it really is *your* router that's generating the Time Exceeded message, then you're the *only* one who can do anything about it. If your router is generating a Time Exceeded message, that is your router's way of saying to you: "Hey, I got a packet here, and after decrementing TTL, TTL is zero. I'm going to assume this packet has been floating around the 'net forever, and simply isn't going to ever reach it's destination." Your router is never transmitting the packet at that point. > cisco-3600>traceroute 75.126.162.205 > Tracing the route to 75.126.162.205 > > 1 * * * ... > all the way to 30 You're not even making it off your router. It's got to be a local problem. Your routing table looks generally correct to me, although I'm not a Cisco guy so I really don't know what the finer details of all that output meant. Perhaps you've got some firewalling or filtering or something in place on the router that's confusing things? Is your NAT broken, so you're emitting packets with a bogus source address? What if you traceroute from a LAN host? Is the output different? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
well Ben is of course right. I found the routing problem. ip classless was not turned on. after turning it on the route to 75.126.162.205 from 75.69.253.xxx/22 works. Thanks for the help! Ben Scott wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: >> My router is returning max hops exceeded. > > *Your* router is returning that? If so, something's wrong on your > router. TTL (Time To Live) is a counter. Every router hop, it gets > decreased by one. If it hits zero, that router sends a ICMP "Time > Exceeded" message to the sender (you). > > The initial TTL is usually something like 64 or 128. If *your* > router is returning the Time Exceeded message, then TTL reached zero > within your router. That suggests a routing loop within your network, > eating up TTL until it expires. > >> I'm trying to figure out if it is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, >> or a specific comcast problem after my super terrific speed upgrade. > > One of the first things you want to do is run a traceroute to the > problem destination. That will help give you an idea of what you can > reach, and what you cannot. > >> Any lucky people out there able to get to them? > > I opened the web site in my browser with no problem. I'm in Dover, > NH, on Comcast "home". Here's my traceroute: > > $ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org > traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 noid (10.10.10.1) 0.652 ms 1.572 ms 1.896 ms > 2 73.194.244.1 (73.194.244.1) 9.164 ms 15.437 ms 20.242 ms > 3 ge-1-2-ur01.dover.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.153.1) 21.782 ms > 22.290 ms 22.711 ms > 4 te-5-3-ur01.exeter.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.93) 21.179 ms > 21.473 ms 21.572 ms > 5 po-21-ur02.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.110) > 23.165 ms 23.268 ms 23.644 ms > 6 po-20-ur01.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.113) > 22.715 ms 17.935 ms 18.142 ms > 7 po-23-ur01.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.117) 18.533 ms > 14.568 ms 14.257 ms > 8 po-20-ur02.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.147.158) 12.604 ms > 16.601 ms 16.529 ms > 9 be-23-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.245) 17.938 > ms 16.131 ms 11.333 ms > 10 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) > 19.468 ms 23.656 ms 23.889 ms > 11 pos-2-5-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.65) > 26.824 ms 27.093 ms 27.195 ms > 12 pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.93) > 32.442 ms 32.708 ms 32.802 ms > 13 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.126) > 54.132 ms 54.401 ms 54.498 ms > 14 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) > 75.541 ms 75.775 ms 79.325 ms > 15 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 76.229 > ms 71.623 ms 73.463 ms > 16 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 77.679 ms > 76.604 ms 76.666 ms > 17 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 76.088 ms > 73.631 ms 79.129 ms > 18 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 78.850 ms 71.065 ms 74.596 ms > $ > > For comparison, here's the traceroute from a "Comcast Workplace" > feed in Amesbury, MA: > > arcgate$ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org > traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 73.168.168.1 (73.168.168.1) 6.075 ms 11.455 ms 11.467 ms > 2 68.85.186.81 (68.85.186.81) 11.546 ms 11.532 ms 11.592 ms > 3 te-9-1-ur01.kingston.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.181) 11.613 > ms 11.646 ms 11.665 ms > 4 te-8-1-ur02.londonderry.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.177) > 12.051 ms 12.110 ms 12.137 ms > 5 te-9-1-ur01.londonderry.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.169) > 11.664 ms 16.081 ms 16.150 ms > 6 te-0-9-0-4-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.194) > 16.212 ms 13.956 ms 13.290 ms > 7 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) > 16.065 ms 15.157 ms 15.204 ms > 8 pos-2-3-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.57) > 18.076 ms 18.395 ms 22.310 ms > 9 pos-1-12-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.29) > 28.228 ms 28.249 ms 28.273 ms > 10 pos-1-15-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.69) > 54.302 ms 54.330 ms 55.442 ms > 11 pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.221) > 76.730 ms 77.890 ms 74.356 ms > 12 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 73.023 > ms 74.074 ms 74.011 ms > 13 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 73.878 ms > 74.590 ms 74.489 ms > 14 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 74.626 ms > 97.208 ms 97.056 ms > 15 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 72.118 ms 74.035 ms 74.038 ms > arcgate$ > > -- Ben > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > > __
Re: comcast routing problems
Yes, my router is returning a hop count exceeded. There isn't much I can do about it. all of my traffic is sent to a dr assigned by dhcp. I have seen this sort of problem before when a router somewhere in the isp is configured incorrectly. Over-lapping other people's assigned IP address range is always a recipe for disaster. my pub ip is 75.69.253.x/22 cisco-3600>show ip route Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR P - periodic downloaded static route Gateway of last resort is 75.69.252.1 to network 0.0.0.0 C192.168.168.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1 75.0.0.0/22 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 75.69.252.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [254/0] via 75.69.252.1 traceroute gets nothing back cisco-3600>ping 75.69.252.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 75.69.252.1, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 8/8/8 ms cisco-3600>traceroute 75.126.162.205 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 75.126.162.205 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * all the way to 30 Ben Scott wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: >> My router is returning max hops exceeded. > > *Your* router is returning that? If so, something's wrong on your > router. TTL (Time To Live) is a counter. Every router hop, it gets > decreased by one. If it hits zero, that router sends a ICMP "Time > Exceeded" message to the sender (you). > > The initial TTL is usually something like 64 or 128. If *your* > router is returning the Time Exceeded message, then TTL reached zero > within your router. That suggests a routing loop within your network, > eating up TTL until it expires. > >> I'm trying to figure out if it is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, >> or a specific comcast problem after my super terrific speed upgrade. > > One of the first things you want to do is run a traceroute to the > problem destination. That will help give you an idea of what you can > reach, and what you cannot. > >> Any lucky people out there able to get to them? > > I opened the web site in my browser with no problem. I'm in Dover, > NH, on Comcast "home". Here's my traceroute: > > $ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org > traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 noid (10.10.10.1) 0.652 ms 1.572 ms 1.896 ms > 2 73.194.244.1 (73.194.244.1) 9.164 ms 15.437 ms 20.242 ms > 3 ge-1-2-ur01.dover.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.153.1) 21.782 ms > 22.290 ms 22.711 ms > 4 te-5-3-ur01.exeter.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.93) 21.179 ms > 21.473 ms 21.572 ms > 5 po-21-ur02.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.110) > 23.165 ms 23.268 ms 23.644 ms > 6 po-20-ur01.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.113) > 22.715 ms 17.935 ms 18.142 ms > 7 po-23-ur01.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.117) 18.533 ms > 14.568 ms 14.257 ms > 8 po-20-ur02.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.147.158) 12.604 ms > 16.601 ms 16.529 ms > 9 be-23-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.245) 17.938 > ms 16.131 ms 11.333 ms > 10 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) > 19.468 ms 23.656 ms 23.889 ms > 11 pos-2-5-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.65) > 26.824 ms 27.093 ms 27.195 ms > 12 pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.93) > 32.442 ms 32.708 ms 32.802 ms > 13 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.126) > 54.132 ms 54.401 ms 54.498 ms > 14 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) > 75.541 ms 75.775 ms 79.325 ms > 15 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 76.229 > ms 71.623 ms 73.463 ms > 16 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 77.679 ms > 76.604 ms 76.666 ms > 17 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 76.088 ms > 73.631 ms 79.129 ms > 18 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 78.850 ms 71.065 ms 74.596 ms > $ > > For comparison, here's the traceroute from a "Comcast Workplace" > feed in Amesbury, MA: > > arcgate$ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org > traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 73.168.168.1 (73.168.168.1) 6.075 ms 11.455 ms 11.467 ms > 2 68.85.186.81 (68.85.186.81) 11.546 ms 11.532 ms 11.592 ms > 3 te-9-1-ur01.kingston.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.181) 1
Re: comcast routing problems
Looks like this is a specific routing problem on my subnet's path. I just can't wait to talk to comcast about it. (by that I mean not) Michael ODonnell wrote: > > It pains me to say anything that appears to cut ComCast any slack > because I have no love for them whatsoever but, FWIW, I'm seeing > essentially the same traceroute output reported by Kenta: > > e521:~ 395---> traceroute linuxquestions.org | lineup > traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 60 byte > packets > 1 prescott67 (192.168.1.1)1.718 > ms 2.166 ms 2.612 ms > 2 c-3-0-ubr03.lawrence.ma.boston.comcast.net (73.165.128.1) > 18.090 ms 18.330 ms 18.541 ms > 3 ge-5-41-ur01.lowell.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.85.161.121) > 21.989 ms 25.375 ms 29.383 ms > 4 be-21-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.144.157) > 35.297 ms 35.525 ms 35.735 ms > 5 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) > 39.328 ms 39.571 ms 39.775 ms > 6 pos-2-3-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.57) > 42.313 ms 40.599 ms 40.680 ms > 7 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.9) > 45.693 ms 22.615 ms 22.519 ms > 8 pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.241) > 53.513 ms 56.894 ms 60.799 ms > 9 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) > 85.758 ms 90.299 ms 90.511 ms > 10 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) > 92.119 ms 92.572 ms 93.221 ms > 11 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) > 91.142 ms 91.383 ms 92.281 ms > 12 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) > 91.669 ms 92.687 ms 92.788 ms > 13 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) > 91.562 ms 69.371 ms 73.092 ms > > ...and my /etc/resolv.conf is this: > > search hsd1.ma.comcast.net > nameserver 68.87.71.230 > nameserver 68.87.71.246 > nameserver 68.87.71.226 > nameserver 68.87.73.242 > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
Every once in a while Comcast will change DNS servers. I generally set up my /etc/resolv.conf with my router as the primary: nameserver 192.168.0.1 nameserver 68.87.71.230 nameserver 68.87.73.242 This is assuming your system uses a static IP. I use a static IP since I like to ssh into it. If you are using a dynamic IP, let DHCp adjust your /etc/resolv.conf. On 11/01/2009 08:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: > Hello All, > > Once again I am experiencing a routing problem on Comcast. > Today I discovered that I cannot reach linuxquestions.org. > > My router is returning max hops exceeded. I'm trying to figure out if it > is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, or a specific comcast problem > after my super terrific speed upgrade. > > Any lucky people out there able to get to them? > > Thanks > -Frank > > > nslookup www.linuxquestions.org > > Non-authoritative answer: > Name: www.linuxquestions.org > Address: 75.126.162.205 > > note: my dhcp router ip is on 75.x.x.x with a /22 mask. > > -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: > My router is returning max hops exceeded. *Your* router is returning that? If so, something's wrong on your router. TTL (Time To Live) is a counter. Every router hop, it gets decreased by one. If it hits zero, that router sends a ICMP "Time Exceeded" message to the sender (you). The initial TTL is usually something like 64 or 128. If *your* router is returning the Time Exceeded message, then TTL reached zero within your router. That suggests a routing loop within your network, eating up TTL until it expires. > I'm trying to figure out if it is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, > or a specific comcast problem after my super terrific speed upgrade. One of the first things you want to do is run a traceroute to the problem destination. That will help give you an idea of what you can reach, and what you cannot. > Any lucky people out there able to get to them? I opened the web site in my browser with no problem. I'm in Dover, NH, on Comcast "home". Here's my traceroute: $ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 noid (10.10.10.1) 0.652 ms 1.572 ms 1.896 ms 2 73.194.244.1 (73.194.244.1) 9.164 ms 15.437 ms 20.242 ms 3 ge-1-2-ur01.dover.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.153.1) 21.782 ms 22.290 ms 22.711 ms 4 te-5-3-ur01.exeter.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.93) 21.179 ms 21.473 ms 21.572 ms 5 po-21-ur02.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.110) 23.165 ms 23.268 ms 23.644 ms 6 po-20-ur01.manchester.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.113) 22.715 ms 17.935 ms 18.142 ms 7 po-23-ur01.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.117) 18.533 ms 14.568 ms 14.257 ms 8 po-20-ur02.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.147.158) 12.604 ms 16.601 ms 16.529 ms 9 be-23-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.245) 17.938 ms 16.131 ms 11.333 ms 10 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) 19.468 ms 23.656 ms 23.889 ms 11 pos-2-5-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.65) 26.824 ms 27.093 ms 27.195 ms 12 pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.93) 32.442 ms 32.708 ms 32.802 ms 13 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.126) 54.132 ms 54.401 ms 54.498 ms 14 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) 75.541 ms 75.775 ms 79.325 ms 15 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 76.229 ms 71.623 ms 73.463 ms 16 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 77.679 ms 76.604 ms 76.666 ms 17 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 76.088 ms 73.631 ms 79.129 ms 18 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 78.850 ms 71.065 ms 74.596 ms $ For comparison, here's the traceroute from a "Comcast Workplace" feed in Amesbury, MA: arcgate$ traceroute www.linuxquestions.org traceroute to www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 73.168.168.1 (73.168.168.1) 6.075 ms 11.455 ms 11.467 ms 2 68.85.186.81 (68.85.186.81) 11.546 ms 11.532 ms 11.592 ms 3 te-9-1-ur01.kingston.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.181) 11.613 ms 11.646 ms 11.665 ms 4 te-8-1-ur02.londonderry.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.177) 12.051 ms 12.110 ms 12.137 ms 5 te-9-1-ur01.londonderry.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.169) 11.664 ms 16.081 ms 16.150 ms 6 te-0-9-0-4-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.146.194) 16.212 ms 13.956 ms 13.290 ms 7 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) 16.065 ms 15.157 ms 15.204 ms 8 pos-2-3-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.57) 18.076 ms 18.395 ms 22.310 ms 9 pos-1-12-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.29) 28.228 ms 28.249 ms 28.273 ms 10 pos-1-15-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.69) 54.302 ms 54.330 ms 55.442 ms 11 pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.221) 76.730 ms 77.890 ms 74.356 ms 12 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 73.023 ms 74.074 ms 74.011 ms 13 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 73.878 ms 74.590 ms 74.489 ms 14 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 74.626 ms 97.208 ms 97.056 ms 15 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 72.118 ms 74.035 ms 74.038 ms arcgate$ -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
It pains me to say anything that appears to cut ComCast any slack because I have no love for them whatsoever but, FWIW, I'm seeing essentially the same traceroute output reported by Kenta: e521:~ 395---> traceroute linuxquestions.org | lineup traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 prescott67 (192.168.1.1)1.718 ms 2.166 ms 2.612 ms 2 c-3-0-ubr03.lawrence.ma.boston.comcast.net (73.165.128.1) 18.090 ms 18.330 ms 18.541 ms 3 ge-5-41-ur01.lowell.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.85.161.121) 21.989 ms 25.375 ms 29.383 ms 4 be-21-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.144.157) 35.297 ms 35.525 ms 35.735 ms 5 pos-0-1-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.74) 39.328 ms 39.571 ms 39.775 ms 6 pos-2-3-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.57)42.313 ms 40.599 ms 40.680 ms 7 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.9) 45.693 ms 22.615 ms 22.519 ms 8 pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.241) 53.513 ms 56.894 ms 60.799 ms 9 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) 85.758 ms 90.299 ms 90.511 ms 10 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 92.119 ms 92.572 ms 93.221 ms 11 po2.dar02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.207) 91.142 ms 91.383 ms 92.281 ms 12 po2.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.182) 91.669 ms 92.687 ms 92.788 ms 13 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 91.562 ms 69.371 ms 73.092 ms ...and my /etc/resolv.conf is this: search hsd1.ma.comcast.net nameserver 68.87.71.230 nameserver 68.87.71.246 nameserver 68.87.71.226 nameserver 68.87.73.242 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
Comcast from Tyngsboro, Mass My browser can access it and I can traceroute to it. Not till hop #4 do the routings hit a similar route. r...@beaker(3) traceroute linuxquestions.org traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.329 ms 0.330 ms 0.325 ms 2 96.128.48.1 (96.128.48.1) 10.517 ms 10.362 ms 10.289 ms 3 ge-5-37-ur01.lowell.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.85.161.41) 10.511 ms 10.823 ms 12.740 ms 4 be-21-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.144.157) 12.874 ms 16.452 ms 12.716 ms 5 pos-0-0-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.70) 15.865 ms 18.433 ms 17.527 ms 6 pos-2-4-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.61) 18.851 ms 19.035 ms 18.663 ms 7 pos-1-11-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.13) 24.578 ms 25.566 ms 25.175 ms 8 pos-1-13-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.233) 51.157 ms 52.333 ms 52.513 ms 9 pos-1-12-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.157) 72.303 ms 72.471 ms 72.130 ms 10 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 196.235 ms 192.574 ms 188.793 ms 11 po2.dar01.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.205) 72.959 ms 78.114 ms 76.758 ms 12 po1.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.178) 124.881 ms 125.043 ms 119.462 ms 13 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 76.272 ms 77.134 ms 73.655 ms -roger - Original Message - From: "kenta" To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2009 8:25:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: comcast routing problems On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: > > Hello All, > > Once again I am experiencing a routing problem on Comcast. > Today I discovered that I cannot reach linuxquestions.org. > > My router is returning max hops exceeded. I'm trying to figure out if it > is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, or a specific comcast problem > after my super terrific speed upgrade. > > Any lucky people out there able to get to them? > > Thanks > -Frank > > > nslookup www.linuxquestions.org > > Non-authoritative answer: > Name: www.linuxquestions.org > Address: 75.126.162.205 > > note: my dhcp router ip is on 75.x.x.x with a /22 mask. I'm on Comcast as well and on the 75-net. Looks like it resolved to the same IP. I was able to get there quickly and traceroute shows 14 hops: traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 unknown (192.168.0.1) 3.782 ms 1.092 ms 1.004 ms 2 * * * 3 68.85.141.121 (68.85.141.121) 10.328 ms 8.147 ms 8.187 ms 4 po-20-ur02.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.147.158) 8.364 ms 7.713 ms 8.556 ms 5 be-23-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.245) 9.493 ms 13.080 ms 9.990 ms 6 pos-0-0-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.70) 13.964 ms 14.434 ms 13.751 ms 7 pos-2-4-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.61) 17.195 ms 21.918 ms 15.398 ms 8 pos-1-13-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.97) 22.957 ms 25.198 ms 23.485 ms 9 pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.73) 50.479 ms 54.937 ms 69.284 ms 10 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) 70.885 ms 71.984 ms 70.089 ms 11 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 70.140 ms 69.979 ms 70.785 ms 12 po2.dar01.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.205) 71.536 ms 70.304 ms 72.208 ms 13 po1.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.178) 71.948 ms 73.852 ms 72.953 ms 14 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 77.765 ms 71.585 ms 71.520 ms ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast routing problems
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Frank DiPrete wrote: > > Hello All, > > Once again I am experiencing a routing problem on Comcast. > Today I discovered that I cannot reach linuxquestions.org. > > My router is returning max hops exceeded. I'm trying to figure out if it > is a comcast problem, a qwest problem, or a specific comcast problem > after my super terrific speed upgrade. > > Any lucky people out there able to get to them? > > Thanks > -Frank > > > nslookup www.linuxquestions.org > > Non-authoritative answer: > Name: www.linuxquestions.org > Address: 75.126.162.205 > > note: my dhcp router ip is on 75.x.x.x with a /22 mask. I'm on Comcast as well and on the 75-net. Looks like it resolved to the same IP. I was able to get there quickly and traceroute shows 14 hops: traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 unknown (192.168.0.1) 3.782 ms 1.092 ms 1.004 ms 2 * * * 3 68.85.141.121 (68.85.141.121) 10.328 ms 8.147 ms 8.187 ms 4 po-20-ur02.nashua.nh.boston.comcast.net (68.87.147.158) 8.364 ms 7.713 ms 8.556 ms 5 be-23-ar01.needham.ma.boston.comcast.net (68.87.145.245) 9.493 ms 13.080 ms 9.990 ms 6 pos-0-0-0-0-ar01.chartford.ct.hartford.comcast.net (68.85.162.70) 13.964 ms 14.434 ms 13.751 ms 7 pos-2-4-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.61) 17.195 ms 21.918 ms 15.398 ms 8 pos-1-13-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.97) 22.957 ms 25.198 ms 23.485 ms 9 pos-1-14-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.73) 50.479 ms 54.937 ms 69.284 ms 10 pos-1-10-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.129) 70.885 ms 71.984 ms 70.089 ms 11 softlayer-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (75.149.228.34) 70.140 ms 69.979 ms 70.785 ms 12 po2.dar01.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.205) 71.536 ms 70.304 ms 72.208 ms 13 po1.fcr02.dal01.dallas-datacenter.com (66.228.118.178) 71.948 ms 73.852 ms 72.953 ms 14 www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 77.765 ms 71.585 ms 71.520 ms ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On 08/25/2009 07:28 PM, Chris wrote: > I just checked mine, and according to my router, the lease time is 4 > days. maybe it's only certain areas. I checked mine last night (Comcast in Billerica MA) and it had a remaining lease time of 2 days, 22 hours. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
I just checked mine, and according to my router, the lease time is 4 days. maybe it's only certain areas. Chris On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote: > On 08/25/2009 09:29 AM, Mark Komarinski wrote: > > They may be getting ready to give you a new IP address or otherwise > > change your networking configuration. If that's the case, a 15 minute > > lease time is advantageous. > > > > I agree, that seems likely. One note, my parents on Verizon DSL in NJ > were actually getting 15 minute DHCP leases and a new IP each 15 > minutes. Apparently when the video phone that shows the grandkids stops > working, *that*'s what it takes to switch ISP's. > > -Bill > > -- > Bill McGonigle, Owner > BFC Computing, LLC > http://bfccomputing.com/ > Telephone: +1.603.448.4440 > Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com > VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf > Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > -- IBA #15631 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On 08/25/2009 09:55 AM, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
> This weekend I got burned by comcast suppressing DNS lookup errors.
I really like my Comcast business connection but I'm using OpenDNS (with
their 'helpful' bits turned off) over it.
In the BIND options block:
forwarders {
208.67.222.222;
208.67.220.220;
};
Setup a web account mapped to your IP block first.
-Bill
--
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
http://bfccomputing.com/
Telephone: +1.603.448.4440
Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf
Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On 08/25/2009 09:29 AM, Mark Komarinski wrote: > They may be getting ready to give you a new IP address or otherwise > change your networking configuration. If that's the case, a 15 minute > lease time is advantageous. > I agree, that seems likely. One note, my parents on Verizon DSL in NJ were actually getting 15 minute DHCP leases and a new IP each 15 minutes. Apparently when the video phone that shows the grandkids stops working, *that*'s what it takes to switch ISP's. -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner BFC Computing, LLC http://bfccomputing.com/ Telephone: +1.603.448.4440 Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ComCast DNS hijacking
>>> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_&_Transfer >> >> Your second link got broken. It should have been: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_%26_Transfer > > Interesting; it worked for me. I wonder if it's my mail software or >my browser that fixed it? > > Firefox 3.5.2 and Gmail. Yes, interesting. I definitely transmitted a literal ampersand in the URL in the original message (cut'n'pasted right out of Firefox's address bar) and that's how it came back to me (and how it appears in the GNHLUG Wiki); no MIME encoding or anything like that was involved. And my mailer (exmh) was able to recognize it and correctly hand it back to Firefox. Is it bad form to use literal ampersands in emailed URLs? Or for Wikipedia to use one in theirs? Are ampersands reserved as a separator when supplying parameters via CGI? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ComCast DNS hijacking
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Dan Jenkins wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_&_Transfer > > Your second link got broken. It should have been: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_%26_Transfer Interesting; it worked for me. I wonder if it's my mail software or my browser that fixed it? Firefox 3.5.2 and Gmail. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, wrote: > Hi all - I notice that comcast has dropped its dhcp lease times > down to about 15 minutes, it used to be a number of hours, which > is rather longer. I wonder if its possible to somehow have the > dhcp requests ask for a longer lease period? Some things that haven't been mentioned: As long as you keep your DHCP client active, it should keep renewing your lease. So your IP address should remain relatively unchanging. Unless Comcast is renumbering your area, in which case you're going to loose the IP address regardless of lease duration. Use a dynamic DNS service to make it possible to look-up your current IP address from the outside world. DynDNS gives you one free A record, and even notifies you if your DDNS client doesn't update it when it should. That's what I've been using for years now. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ComCast DNS hijacking
> At least you can opt-out now via a form presented on the page. Grumble... well the actual opt-out page is here: https://dns-opt-out.comcast.net/ ...and just for a bit of ironic fun I wondered what would happen if tried the www. version of that hostname, thus: https://www.dns-opt-out.comcast.net/ ...but all I got was a not-found error. ;-> However, when I tried this one: https://www.dns-opt-out.comcast.netJ/ ...it did redirect me back to the DNS hijack page. > Comcast.net - Domain Helper Service > > When a non-existent web address is typed into a browser, a built-in > error message is displayed. The Comcast's Domain Helper service is > designed to help guide you to a useful search page that has a list > of recommended sites that come close to matching the original web > address that did not exist. > > If you are a residential or commercial cable modem subscriber, and > you wish to opt-out of the Comcast Domain Helper service, please > complete the form below. Once you submit this information, we will > send you a confirmation so that we can authenticate the request. > We will then follow-up once you have been successfully opted-out. > > Opt-Out > > Your Confirmation Email Address: > Example: john@comcast.net > Note: A Comcast.net email address is not required. > > Why do we need this? > We will send you an email asking you to authenticate/confirm your > request. You will also be sent an email once your opt-out request > has been successfully processed. > > Cable Modem MAC Address: > Example: 00:16:46:C8:D2:DD > _: _: _: _: _: _ > Where can I find the MAC address? > Why do we need this? > We opt-out your entire household, covering all of your home computers > that access the Internet via the Comcast network. As a result, > we need this unique identifier of your cable modem / eMTA. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ComCast DNS hijacking
Michael ODonnell wrote: > I was going to write up a description of my traceroute investigations > into ComCast's DNS hijacking when I found a very similar writeup > here: > > http://slashdot.org/submission/1052907/Comcast-Hijacking-DNS-wMicrosofts-Help > > > ...with add'l info here: > > http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/fast-customer.aspx > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_&_Transfer Your second link got broken. It should have been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_%26_Transfer ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ComCast DNS hijacking
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Michael ODonnell < michael.odonn...@comcast.net> wrote: > I was going to write up a description of my traceroute investigations > into ComCast's DNS hijacking when I found a very similar writeup here: > > > http://slashdot.org/submission/1052907/Comcast-Hijacking-DNS-wMicrosofts-Help > > ...with add'l info here: > > http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/fast-customer.aspx > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Search_&_Transfer At least you can opt-out now via a form presented on the page. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Lloyd Kvam wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: >> On 08/25/2009 09:23 AM, jk...@kinz.org wrote: >> > Hi all - I notice that comcast has dropped its dhcp lease times >> > down to about 15 minutes, it used to be a number of hours, which >> > is rather longer. I wonder if its possible to somehow have the >> > dhcp requests ask for a longer lease period? Anyone know, how If >> > its possible? >> > >> I don't think you can change the lease time on the client side. >> > I assume that you could change it if you could get at the configuration. > > (somewhat changing the topic) > This weekend I got burned by comcast suppressing DNS lookup errors. > Names that started with www (e.g. www.jjexample.com) that should have > generated "not found" errors instead returned the IP address of > search2.comcast.com. I was setting up a monitor for a new domain > service and couldn't understand why the monitor was finding a service > even before the service was running. comcast thinks that all name > service requests for www. names originate from people running browsers. > I finally got an email this morning that my opt out has been processed. > I filed a grumble with the FCC, but don't know if that will have any > impact. I recall an email from comcast about this new feature and that you can opt. out of the search page and receive the default 'not found' error. -pete > > Perhaps comcast is rolling out this DNS service to more of its network > and shortening the leases to allow rapid changes to the name servers > that get specified with the leases. > >> They may be getting ready to give you a new IP address or otherwise >> change your networking configuration. If that's the case, a 15 minute >> lease time is advantageous. >> >> -Mark >> ___ >> gnhlug-discuss mailing list >> gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org >> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > -- > Lloyd Kvam > Venix Corp > DLSLUG/GNHLUG library > http://dlslug.org/library.html > http://www.librarything.com/catalog/dlslug > http://www.librarything.com/rsshtml/recent/dlslug > http://www.librarything.com/rss/recent/dlslug > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On 08/25/2009 09:23 AM, jk...@kinz.org wrote: > Hi all - I notice that comcast has dropped its dhcp lease times down > to about 15 minutes, it used to be a number of hours, which is rather > longer. I wonder if its possible to somehow have the dhcp requests > ask for a longer lease period? Anyone know, how If its possible? > You can request a longer lease time, but not compel it. That is up to Comcast's DHCP server configuration. If you use dhclient, it is the dhcp-lease-time option, which is sent as part of the send request if I recollect. I've never used it. I just checked my last few Comcast leases have been about 220,000 seconds each (60 hours). I've had the same IP number for a couple of years. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:29 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: > On 08/25/2009 09:23 AM, jk...@kinz.org wrote: > > Hi all - I notice that comcast has dropped its dhcp lease times > > down to about 15 minutes, it used to be a number of hours, which > > is rather longer. I wonder if its possible to somehow have the > > dhcp requests ask for a longer lease period? Anyone know, how If > > its possible? > > > I don't think you can change the lease time on the client side. > I assume that you could change it if you could get at the configuration. (somewhat changing the topic) This weekend I got burned by comcast suppressing DNS lookup errors. Names that started with www (e.g. www.jjexample.com) that should have generated "not found" errors instead returned the IP address of search2.comcast.com. I was setting up a monitor for a new domain service and couldn't understand why the monitor was finding a service even before the service was running. comcast thinks that all name service requests for www. names originate from people running browsers. I finally got an email this morning that my opt out has been processed. I filed a grumble with the FCC, but don't know if that will have any impact. Perhaps comcast is rolling out this DNS service to more of its network and shortening the leases to allow rapid changes to the name servers that get specified with the leases. > They may be getting ready to give you a new IP address or otherwise > change your networking configuration. If that's the case, a 15 minute > lease time is advantageous. > > -Mark > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp DLSLUG/GNHLUG library http://dlslug.org/library.html http://www.librarything.com/catalog/dlslug http://www.librarything.com/rsshtml/recent/dlslug http://www.librarything.com/rss/recent/dlslug ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast dhcp leases
On 08/25/2009 09:23 AM, jk...@kinz.org wrote: > Hi all - I notice that comcast has dropped its dhcp lease times > down to about 15 minutes, it used to be a number of hours, which > is rather longer. I wonder if its possible to somehow have the > dhcp requests ask for a longer lease period? Anyone know, how If > its possible? > I don't think you can change the lease time on the client side. They may be getting ready to give you a new IP address or otherwise change your networking configuration. If that's the case, a 15 minute lease time is advantageous. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
Of all the things Comcast has done, dropping Usenet is probably one of the least bad. I don't particularly think the legions of Comcast subscribers should be footing the bill for a service a very tiny fraction use. Sure, Comcast could make it an additional-fee service, but let's face it, if you have to pay extra for Usenet, would you rather pay Comcast, or a decent company? Of course, I highly doubt Comcast subscribers are going to see any of the cost savings On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:47 PM, TARogue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's nice to be able to ask a question and get an answer without just > getting fed a "RTFM" answer. Oh, right, and that *never* happens on Usenet. ;-) > I won't use google news (no filters), > and don't konw what I would do if MV dropped usenet. I suspect Usenet is going to become the domain (no pun intended) of a smaller number of boutique providers, as it falls out of the mainstream. MV might well fall into that category, but even if MV were to drop Usenet, I'm sure you'll be able to find a good Usenet provider willing to serve NNTP over the 'net. For a fee, of course. Special services usually don't come free, and Usenet is heading in that direction. I'm expecting to eventually see some kind of generalized message sharing protocol emerge in the world of individually hosted systems. Whether it's an email/web-forum/NNTP gateway or something else, I dunno. But the concept of message systems is too useful for it to just die off. The Internet is in transition, here. I'm not so sure about widely distributed systems lacking central authority, a la Usenet. It's hard to defend against abuse in such systems. Such systems also tend towards open-ended costs with no ability to tap them for revenue to cover costs. I could see some kind of mixed-mode system, with a generally distributed architecture, but with some central controls, succeeding. Then again, if Usenet does become a paid, boutique service, that's pretty much what it would become. Of course, this is all rampant speculation on my part, but it's fun. :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
TARogue wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Michael Pelletier wrote: > >> Managing a full Usenet feed was a hassle 10 years ago, I can hardly imagine >> what it's like now - how many full 24x7 T3 lines does it take nowadays? >> Let's see... in June a full feed averaged 3.98 terabytes per day >> (http://www.newsdemon.com/average_feed_size.php) so that's 10.8 T3 lines >> 24x7 every single day, just for the AVERAGE load. >> >> According to newsadmin.com's stats (http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet.asp), >> text posts accounted for 0.3% of the articles yesterday, and the rest was >> image, audio, video, executables, and unspecified file types. >> Comcast could have just stopped pulling binaries in the feed if space and bandwidth was the issue. But then again ... it's Comcast. Sorry Roger - you tiger now. > So, get rid of the alt.* groups. I live on rec.crafts.brewing as well as > a few nh.* groups. > > blogs, rss feeds, and that ilk are crap compared to usenet. Usenet was > two-way, open ended communication, even when moderated. blogs and that > crap are one way "it's my blog, and i can delete your post if i don't > agree" self-love fests. > > It's nice to be able to ask a question and get an answer without just > getting fed a "RTFM" answer. > > I thank God MV still keeps usenet. I won't use google news (no filters), > and don't konw what I would do if MV dropped usenet. > >> --- >> So, okay, Usenet, dead? It's been a joke for such a long time. Tell me it >> ain't so. But, really, Usenet being still alive in this time frame would >> itself be a cruel joke. It's best to remember Usenet of the golden age, I >> guess, than to try and preserve it's antiquated ways which don't fit todays >> Internet. >> --- >> > The Usenet I read is very much alive and active. > > Tom > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: comcast strikes again....
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Michael Pelletier wrote: > Managing a full Usenet feed was a hassle 10 years ago, I can hardly imagine > what it's like now - how many full 24x7 T3 lines does it take nowadays? > Let's see... in June a full feed averaged 3.98 terabytes per day > (http://www.newsdemon.com/average_feed_size.php) so that's 10.8 T3 lines > 24x7 every single day, just for the AVERAGE load. > > According to newsadmin.com's stats (http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet.asp), > text posts accounted for 0.3% of the articles yesterday, and the rest was > image, audio, video, executables, and unspecified file types. > So, get rid of the alt.* groups. I live on rec.crafts.brewing as well as a few nh.* groups. blogs, rss feeds, and that ilk are crap compared to usenet. Usenet was two-way, open ended communication, even when moderated. blogs and that crap are one way "it's my blog, and i can delete your post if i don't agree" self-love fests. It's nice to be able to ask a question and get an answer without just getting fed a "RTFM" answer. I thank God MV still keeps usenet. I won't use google news (no filters), and don't konw what I would do if MV dropped usenet. > --- > So, okay, Usenet, dead? It's been a joke for such a long time. Tell me it > ain't so. But, really, Usenet being still alive in this time frame would > itself be a cruel joke. It's best to remember Usenet of the golden age, I > guess, than to try and preserve it's antiquated ways which don't fit todays > Internet. > --- > The Usenet I read is very much alive and active. Tom -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree on. -- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims" ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > newsgroups are going to fade. RSS feeds are more widely used by most > > internet users and do not require ISPs to have lots of local storage. > > It is interesting to observe how usage dynamics have evolved as the > cost of storage, bandwidth, and administration overhead has changed. > The game has changed. Sun had an issue with Solaris 8 (7?) web server/network performance vs Linux. Solaris was 30% slower on the same benchmark. They looked at thier network stack and found it was designed for a Sun Sparcstation 1. Typical config was 100 MB disk, 16 MB RAM. Linux's stack was optimized for much more ram. Solaris 9 & especially 10 is now much faster as it's designed with more RAM, etc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > newsgroups are going to fade. RSS feeds are more widely used by most > internet users and do not require ISPs to have lots of local storage. It is interesting to observe how usage dynamics have evolved as the cost of storage, bandwidth, and administration overhead has changed. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Steven W. Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday, Sep 22nd 2008 at 09:59 -, quoth Pete Snider: > > =>comcast is doing it again, they're dropping usenet. I saw the notice > =>on slashdot.com, below is the announcement and the link: > => > =>http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1 > => > =>The Comcast Newsgroups service has been discontinued. > => > =>We apologize for any inconvenience. > => > =>If you have already signed up for Comcast Newsgroups, please be aware > =>that this service will be discontinued on > => > =>10/25/2008 > > So much for a.s.p > > I'm on RCN and they got rid of it a couple of years ago. > Verizon/FiOS dropped alt.* awhile ago to comply with the NY Govenor's request. alt.folklore.computers was nice. newsgroups are going to fade. RSS feeds are more widely used by most internet users and do not require ISPs to have lots of local storage. I'm surprised they've stayed around this long. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Pete Snider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comcast is doing it again, they're dropping usenet. I saw the notice > on slashdot.com, below is the announcement and the link: > http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1 > The Comcast Newsgroups service has been discontinued. > We apologize for any inconvenience. > If you have already signed up for Comcast Newsgroups, please be aware > that this service will be discontinued on > 10/25/2008 Doesn't really suprise me. Saddens me for sure, but Usenet never evolved, and I'm not sure of the real traffic numbers, but I'd bet the signal to noise ratio is easily 1 to 1 if you look at the pure binary warez/porn/freemusic uuencoded traffic. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: comcast strikes again....
I can't say I'm particularly surprised they're leaving poor old Usenet News to GigaNews and NewsDemon. Managing a full Usenet feed was a hassle 10 years ago, I can hardly imagine what it's like now - how many full 24x7 T3 lines does it take nowadays? Let's see... in June a full feed averaged 3.98 terabytes per day (http://www.newsdemon.com/average_feed_size.php) so that's 10.8 T3 lines 24x7 every single day, just for the AVERAGE load. According to newsadmin.com's stats (http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet.asp), text posts accounted for 0.3% of the articles yesterday, and the rest was image, audio, video, executables, and unspecified file types. In the count of posts by Usenet provider, Comcast.com ranks 17th, with a paltry 1,275 posts in 2,176 parts on September 20 out of 14.4 MILLION high-speed internet customers. The list bottoms out with number 33, telia.net, with ONE post. The top 100 text newsgroups by unique access bottoms out with #100, alt.pl.regionalne.trojmiasto.ogloszenia, with 155 unique accesses. Even talk.origins, that good old eternal flame-war, only managed 944 unique accesses yesterday. Comcast users come in second place for unique newsgroups accessed, with a 1,390 yesterday, again, out of 14.4 million customers. So considering that just the top 10 providers posted 7,545,985 individual articles on 9/20, it seems safe to estimate that probably 99.% of Usenet articles are expired from Comcast servers without a single reader access. And Comcast is thus paying good money for fairly comprehensive Usenet service to serve - at the absolute maximum - 0.01% of its customer base, or 0.001% if each user accessed an average of 10 newsgroups yesterday. http://www.twine.com/item/11cwqrtjc-28d/r-i-p-usenet-1980-2008-huh --- So, okay, Usenet, dead? It's been a joke for such a long time. Tell me it ain't so. But, really, Usenet being still alive in this time frame would itself be a cruel joke. It's best to remember Usenet of the golden age, I guess, than to try and preserve it's antiquated ways which don't fit todays Internet. --- I'd much rather Comcast ditch Usenet than throttle my competing VoIP phone service, frankly. -Michael Pelletier. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Snider Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:00 AM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: comcast strikes again comcast is doing it again, they're dropping usenet. I saw the notice on slashdot.com, below is the announcement and the link: http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1 The Comcast Newsgroups service has been discontinued. We apologize for any inconvenience. If you have already signed up for Comcast Newsgroups, please be aware that this service will be discontinued on 10/25/2008 -pete ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast strikes again....
On Monday, Sep 22nd 2008 at 09:59 -, quoth Pete Snider: =>comcast is doing it again, they're dropping usenet. I saw the notice =>on slashdot.com, below is the announcement and the link: => =>http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/?cookieattempt=1 => =>The Comcast Newsgroups service has been discontinued. => =>We apologize for any inconvenience. => =>If you have already signed up for Comcast Newsgroups, please be aware =>that this service will be discontinued on => =>10/25/2008 So much for a.s.p I'm on RCN and they got rid of it a couple of years ago. -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On May 20, 2008, at 22:33, Ben Scott wrote: > Maybe it's because we always seem to be doing both at > once. :-/ +1 Insightful. On May 20, 2008, at 23:16, Arc Riley wrote: > we need to break the last mile problem, then let competition reign. > ... > if enough people want to and are willing to put the effort in, that > monopoly can be broken yeah, no kidding. Any workable ideas? > too many people are lazy, happy to pay "just one bill!", even if they > know theyre being ripped off Sounds like you're describing a market opportunity for a 'bill aggregator'. "Customers who don't mind being ripped off" has to be a great opportunity. Maybe members of the Nanny State Project would sign up for a payroll deduction that would take care of all of their utilities, insurance, and maintenance. Thar's gold in them thar hills. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
> The world of telecom regulation is a maze of twisty passages, all > different. Regulation -- the way it's been done in this country -- > hasn't really worked very well so far. Of course, neither has > deregulation. Maybe it's because we always seem to be doing both at > once. :-/ Bell had a gov backed monopoly for decades, taking the rules away FOR THEM makes it worse usually when you hear the word deregulation its about the ilecs, not clecs cable companies still have a monopoly on local areas backed by the town or city making "francise agreements" as "incentive" for them to build their proprietary, closed networks we need to break the last mile problem, then let competition reign. > Voting with our wallets is absolutely the best solution, when it's > possible. Alas, the telcos generally have a monopoly, too. How nice! if enough people want to and are willing to put the effort in, that monopoly can be broken too many people are lazy, happy to pay "just one bill!", even if they know theyre being ripped off ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... TOS/AUP ... > > That is all fine and good, but it doesn't absolve them of the fact that > an agent of the company is not informed (perhaps strategically) properly > about their service regulations. True enough. But the idea that people are frequently clueless, misinformed, just plain wrong, or outright dishonest is hardly a new one. "Always read the fine print" is a proverb for good reason. That doesn't make it right, of course, but the fact that it's unfair doesn't make it untrue, either. > The aggravating thing is that they never actually come out and say these > things. There I have to disagree. Again, I refer you to their TOS. Section 4.3 is "Restrictions on Use" -- a list of things you can't do. One of those things is "use the Service to host any type of server". That's pretty explicit. > It is like they don't really want to let on that they are blocking traffic, > but > they want to do it anyhow. From their point of view, they're only blocking things which they explicitly prohibit anyway. >>> Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. >> >> So? > > I don't think that anybody here can argue that port 80 traffic is more > prone to misuse than port 137-139,449 traffic. I honestly don't know. But you're making an assumption with "prone to misuse". Their TOS just prohibit things; they don't say *why*. It's entirely possible they don't care about "misuse" at all, but are prohibiting servers for some other reason. As I said, it might be as simple as that's how they tell the difference between "residential" and "business" usage. TCP/80 might just be the easiest vehicle for them use for that. Or maybe they're worried about public file sharing and copyright cartel DMCA notices. Or maybe this is just a leftover from the days of the "Code Red" worms, when Windoze boxes running unpatched IIS servers on TCP/80 was a *huge* problem for the whole 'net. Or something else. > The only reason that I was given was that they wanted > to prevent home users from serving web servers. If that is the case, > then the policy should state that port 80 will be blocked. So they should spell out exactly how they do their enforcement, so you can work around that enforcement easier? Remember: You were trying to do something you were prohibited from doing. I can understand being pissed off about being misled by their salesweasles. I fully appreciate that clueless tech support drones suck. I can sympathize with complaints that their TOS are overly restrictive. But complaining that they didn't let you do the things they said they don't let you do... ~shrug~ >They also didn't even know if the business-tier blocks port 80 ... FWIW: http://business.verizon.net/policies/tospolicy.aspx They don't appear to prohibit servers explicitly. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Verizon still has issues. They're a lousy company to do business with, and routinely fail to deliver what they promise. > It seems that email servers seem to be a bigger problem to "the rest of > the world". Verizon generally doesn't care about what's a problem to the rest of the world, they care about what's a problem *to them*. That said, spam is a problem to them, and they generally block TCP/25 outbound, from what I understand. And I think they require you to use authenticated SMTP to relay through their servers, too. (I dunno for sure; it's been a while since I had to use a Verizon IP feed, thank $DEITY.) >> ... most home Internet users are consumer sheep, not producers of >> content ... > > I disagree to an extent. Many people purchase a broadband connection for > the purpose of online gaming and other interactive services like that. > These tend to have a significant bi-directional requirement to them. Fair point (heh, pun). "Consumers" are generating more traffic than they used to. I guess my own mental picture of Internet traffic patterns are a bit dated. > I feel like the gamers get a pass here, while I get the shaft. That would seem to be the case. I don't think that was by design (Verizon is generally incompetent; if they set out to do that on purpose, I would expect them to screw it up), but I think that's the end result for you. :-( >> Or to know that when somebody's home web server >> coughs up the default "Your Apache installation is working" page, it's >> not the ISP's fault. > > Then they can institute policies like MV, DSLExtreme, Easynews, > TimeWarner, CinciBell, and others which say that they refuse to provide > support for resolving problems with servers. Alas, saying one doesn't provide support doesn't cut down on the support calls. Heck, remember, Verizon said they prohibit servers, and you've been raising all kinds of hell about it. :-) BTW, it does appear that TW prohibits web servers. Time Warner Residential Services Subscriber Agreement, section (4)(b)(iii)
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On May 15, 2008, at 13:04, Coleman Kane wrote: > So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers > here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like > they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. I suspect it's a policy that pre-dates P2P where web serving was likely to cost them the most in peering costs. Like criminal puppetry in NH, obsolete policies often linger in corporations unless there's a cost advantage to getting rid of them. In a dial-up world, having a web server account somewhere makes pretty good sense. Some of our fellow GNHLUG members have glass to the garage with 15 meg up, and now it doesn't, and one could argue that community benefit is forfeit due to this policy, which is against the idea of their granted monopoly. I don't know what the killer application is when everybody has FTTP and 2-way communication, but it's hard to find out too. So, the moral of the story is apparently to develop the spec for HTTP over Bittorrent. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As Ben has been saying, the TOS says no servers & sometimes they do things > to prevent servers. > > Port 80 is the easy thing. I'm surprised they don't block 25, but then the > problem is outgoing mail, not incoming. > > They'll start having issues when they start blocking p2p stuff or > torrents. Most of those move around to random ports so it's a harder > problem. You can't really do p2p/bittorrent unless you can be a server and > a client. Some apps (WoW I think) use bittorrent to distribute patches too. > > On a similar note, there's the AOL AIM method. Lots of places block > outgoing ports to the default AIM port, so AOL listens on every port for > AIM. Chances are, one of those ports is open going out from the client. If > you want to find an outgoing hole in a firewall, nmap p1-65535 > oscar.aim.aol.com and you'll get a list of where to put your ssh server. > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:15 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some > > traffic. > ... > > I learned this, after the sales person assured me > > that they don't block inbound traffic. > > Wow. I'm shocked -- *SHOCKED* -- to hear that. > > I know everyone always likes to only pay for what they can get away > with, rather than paying for what is delivered, but when push comes to > shove, the TOS/AUP is always the controlling document. People really > need to come to terms with that. What the sales guy or tech rep or > anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. Just > stop wasting your time (and everyone else's) worrying about what the > sales person said, because *it doesn't matter*. The TOS is the boss, > and the TOS spells this out in clear, unambiguous language. That is all fine and good, but it doesn't absolve them of the fact that an agent of the company is not informed (perhaps strategically) properly about their service regulations. This would have been fine if it stopped there, but two other technicians argued with me about the company not filtering any traffic. > > Specifically: The TOS of big ISPs pretty much *always* forbid > hosting services on residential connections. If you get away with > more, don't ever forget that you're getting something more than what > you've been promised, and as such, it can evaporate at any time. They > can change it at any time. They can block TCP/25 ever other day and > still be within their rights, because they are still giving you > exactly what they said they would. > > Don't be surprised when you get exactly what you signed up for. > > > Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking > > incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that > > they don't want you to run a server ... > > Um... they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to > do. While they don't say that they may block TCP ports to enforce > that policy, the fact that *they explicitly forbid you from doing what > you're trying to do* is kind of a clue, don't ya think? > > For those of you playing along at home: > > http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp > Section 4, Subsection 3 I read this too, and explained to the tech that the paragraph lead me to believe that it fell under their bandwidth regulations, where they have some maximum bandwidth number (that, of course, they can't tell you) that will be modified to restrict your traffic. I suppose blocking port 80 might fall under "bandwidth restrictions". The aggravating thing is that they never actually come out and say these things. It is like they don't really want to let on that they are blocking traffic, but they want to do it anyhow. > > > Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. > > So? I don't think that anybody here can argue that port 80 traffic is more prone to misuse than port 137-139,449 traffic. They did not tell me that they are employing this restriction to safeguard users. The only reason that I was given was that they wanted to prevent home users from serving web servers. If that is the case, then the policy should state that port 80 will be blocked. They also didn't even know if the business-tier blocks port 80 (which, at this point, I wouldn't even try). As far as I can tell from researching the matter, Verizon probably blocks port 80 for all but the highest level of Business DSL (which has up to 29 static IPs). So, I am left to guess that Verizon doesn't provide a solution for me. I could ask them, but they cannot be trusted to tell the truth on the matter, so it is better not to use them at all. > > > The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. > > It is extremely rare, in any part of any activity of any kind > anywhere in the world, to find that a law, rule, or policy is enforced > with absolute totality. You don't get a ticket every single time you > exceed the speed limit. You don't die every time you do something > risky in life. I don't get fired every time I screw off at work. I > don't ban people from the list server every time they break a rule. > This is pretty much the way the entire world works, and thank goodness > for that. > > I suspect the reason they're just blocking TCP/80 inbound is that is > where the problems were. Whatever motivation they have for blocking > the hosting of services, they found that the sore spot was web > servers. People running SSH servers or IRC servers or whatever > haven't been irritating enough for them to care yet. It seems that email servers seem to be a bigger problem to "the rest of the world". Additionally, abuse on any sort of ethical level wasn't the justification given to me when I asked why. The r
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:15:21 -0400 "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What the sales guy or tech rep or > anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. I will keep this gem. It will prove useful in talking to more clients than I care to think about. Reading the sections of the written documents which discuss what can happen if you violate its terms is also a prudent thing to do. -- Ed Lawson Ham Callsign: K1VP PGP Key ID: 1591EAD3 PGP Key Fingerprint: 79A1 CDC3 EF3D 7F93 1D28 2D42 58E4 2287 1591 EAD3 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some > traffic. ... > I learned this, after the sales person assured me > that they don't block inbound traffic. Wow. I'm shocked -- *SHOCKED* -- to hear that. I know everyone always likes to only pay for what they can get away with, rather than paying for what is delivered, but when push comes to shove, the TOS/AUP is always the controlling document. People really need to come to terms with that. What the sales guy or tech rep or anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. Just stop wasting your time (and everyone else's) worrying about what the sales person said, because *it doesn't matter*. The TOS is the boss, and the TOS spells this out in clear, unambiguous language. Specifically: The TOS of big ISPs pretty much *always* forbid hosting services on residential connections. If you get away with more, don't ever forget that you're getting something more than what you've been promised, and as such, it can evaporate at any time. They can change it at any time. They can block TCP/25 ever other day and still be within their rights, because they are still giving you exactly what they said they would. Don't be surprised when you get exactly what you signed up for. > Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking > incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that > they don't want you to run a server ... Um... they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to do. While they don't say that they may block TCP ports to enforce that policy, the fact that *they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to do* is kind of a clue, don't ya think? For those of you playing along at home: http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp Section 4, Subsection 3 > Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. So? > The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. It is extremely rare, in any part of any activity of any kind anywhere in the world, to find that a law, rule, or policy is enforced with absolute totality. You don't get a ticket every single time you exceed the speed limit. You don't die every time you do something risky in life. I don't get fired every time I screw off at work. I don't ban people from the list server every time they break a rule. This is pretty much the way the entire world works, and thank goodness for that. I suspect the reason they're just blocking TCP/80 inbound is that is where the problems were. Whatever motivation they have for blocking the hosting of services, they found that the sore spot was web servers. People running SSH servers or IRC servers or whatever haven't been irritating enough for them to care yet. As for what the motivation for prohibiting the hosting services, I don't know. I can make some inferences based on the simple rule of "follow the money", though. To wit: It is hard to tell the difference between someone using something for "personal" vs "business" reasons. But looking at "hosting services" is an easy way to separate out the huge majority of people who are just looking to get email, watch YouTube, and download porn, from the much smaller group of people who actually want to use the Internet as a two-way link. Believe it or not, there *are* costs associated with this. Aside from asymmetric bandwidth demands (most home Internet users are consumer sheep, not producers of content, and the big ISPs design with that in mind (there may be a self-reinforcing component to this, but it's still the way things are)), hosting services is decidedly more complex and thus will involve more support calls. Why do you think the guy you got was so useless and clueless? Because he's trained on helping people through tasks like plugging in their modem and configuring Outlook Express. It costs a lot more money to train someone to, for example, know what a datagram is. Or to know that when somebody's home web server coughs up the default "Your Apache installation is working" page, it's not the ISP's fault. Sure, *you're* clueful enough to understand that, but there's a lot more people who have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Anyone who's ever done any support work knows that the support burden of those types can be quite large. People interested in hosting services tend to have higher expectations and bigger demands than the average consumer herd-animal. There's nothing inherent in a running a server that makes it that way, but it still is that way. Just like being a teenager doesn't automatically make one a bad driver, but statistically, the insurance companies know they should charge more for them. In short, people hosting services cost the ISP more than most of their customers. Why should th
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 25. So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers > here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. > > > Their bias is that this may motivate people who want to run a home-server no matter what to jump to their business tier DSL, which, naturally, costs more for essentially the same connection, just with port 80 open. IMHO, it's border-line fraud because they are charging more for practically no change in service (upload and download speeds are the same at the first business-level tier, but there are I think 3 tiers of business service total), but that's want deregulation has given us. And yes, I am a Verizon/Fair Point home DSL customer. I will happily and gratefully admit that the service, for what it is, has been reliable, mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 18:01 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, I need to get in touch with their business reps in > > order to figure out a business package that works for me. > > Yah, their residential division cannot sell the business packages, > and indeed, are often not even aware of then. If you seriously want > to go that route, I suggest identifying yourself to Comcast as a > business. If you say you're calling from a residence you'll just > confuse them. Say you have a small business office and want service. > This isn't even necessarily being misleaning; an individual can run a > sole proprietorship pretty much just by saying they are. > > > I did find their "teleworker" package that must > > be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each. > > Yah, in addition to lousy customer service and draconian AUP, > Comcast's rates are also quite high. Good, fast, cheap: Pick none. > > > When in Cincinnati, I had good service relations with Cincinnati Bell > > out there. That may be due in part to them being the only remaining > > local telco that wasn't a former vital organ of AT&T... > > That -- not being a Baby/Big Bell -- actually makes a really big > difference most of the time. NH used to have a number of small local > telcos, who -- from what I've been told -- generally had good service. > But anything that used to be Ma Bell -- forget it. They practically > invented bad customer service[1]. "We don't care. We don't have to. > We're the phone company." > > [1] Well, actually, banks invented bad customer service, but the > telcos automated it. > > > Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the > > inner-city limits. > > Yah, and even that can be really iffy in New England. Some of the > outside plant (lines on the poles, junction boxes, etc.) is incredibly > old and outdated. It's not at all uncommon to find stuff over 50 > years old, and which hasn't been properly maintained, either. You're > lucky to be able to run 28 Kbit/sec modem over it, let alone DSL. In > my old hometown of Newton, I remember when they had to replace a large > junction box because the tree it was nailed to grew far enough to > start pulling the wires off the termination blocks. > > -- Ben So... an update to all of this... I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some traffic. They specifically block incoming port 80 traffic and nothing else, with the explicit reason that they want to block people from running webservers. I learned this, after the sales person assured me that they don't block inbound traffic. I also was occupied for two hours arguing with multiple first-tier technicians who told me (in broken English) that it had to be my problem and that Verizon/FairPoint doesn't block *any* inbound traffic. Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that they don't want you to run a server, but it says that I agree to Verizon reducing my bandwidth or disconnecting my service if I exceed their (unspecified) bandwidth limits. Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. So (if I were a luser), my inbound port 137-139 are open, as well as port 449 and port 25. So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. The only upside is that Verizon gave me a 30 free-trial deal that I can run out, and I don't have to pay anything before I switch to another provider. I am looking into mv.com right now, as my best option. Speakeasy is nice, but they are expensive, and provide more that I need. MV sounds great, but the activation fee is high (especially since I am pretty certain I'll be moving again in August). I did find another company named DSLExtreme (http://www.dslextreme.com/) that apparently allows servers and even provides a web-interface for blocking/unblocking port 25. Additionally, they endorse the use of their connection for home-serving. There's a helpful FAQ here: http://www2.dslextreme.com/Support/KB/Details.aspx?questionid=11128 Right now I am looking into them as my best bet. The agent on the phone has told me that they don't charge activation right now... and the prices are less expensive than any of my other options. So they are worth looking into as an option. The downside is that they're located in Salt Lake City, UT... so no local office. -- Coleman Kane ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Yes, I'm using a Linux server as my router. Once I noticed the DNS-related behavior, I power-cycled the DSL modem so I could test it thoroughly to confirm it. After that, I set up an hourly cron job on the routing server that asks the DSL modem to resolve "www.google.com": host www.google.com dsl.abreau.net (where "abreau.net" is my internal DNS zone, not the external abreau.net zone on the BLU server). On Fri, May 2, 2008 9:47 am, Jerry Feldman said: > On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:28:28 -0400 (EDT) > "John Abreau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only >> a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first >> installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that >> it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to >> resolve a DNS query. >> >> Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it >> when I listed all the differences in network configurations between >> the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. > > > So, while this has nothing to do with Comcast, how did you eventually > resolve it? Are you using Linux as a router? Additionally, Comcast's -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:28:28 -0400 (EDT) "John Abreau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only > a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first > installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that > it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to > resolve a DNS query. > > Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it > when I listed all the differences in network configurations between > the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. So, while this has nothing to do with Comcast, how did you eventually resolve it? Are you using Linux as a router? Additionally, Comcast's predecessors, Continental CableVison initially would use the PC's MAC address the first time you provisioned. As a result, if you changed your NIC card or computer, you needed to call tech support to update the provisioning. They stopped this somewhere between MediaOne and ATTBI. I don't know what policies other ISP's have. I generally clone my MAC address into my router, but that is kind of unnecessary now. The cable modem does store the MAC address, but that can be cleared when you power down the cable modem. Secondly, most level 1 tech support people are not highly technically knowledgeable. They generally answer questions from a cookbook. So, when you call, you might get someone totally clueless or sometimes someone who has some technical knowledge. I've also found that some of the more technically knowledgeable people are the ones from India. In most cases, your best bet is to try to elevate it up to level 2 or higher where you do get a tech with some technical expertise. -- -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Wed, April 30, 2008 6:20 pm, Joshua Ronne Altemoos said: > I have read the list but I don't control what we get and what we don't. My > roommate does and I have to make due with what is well know. > > On the matter of the modem it happens even when another computer is using > the connection. I also do not know how to log into this modem. > I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to resolve a DNS query. Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it when I listed all the differences in network configurations between the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
I have read the list but I don't control what we get and what we don't. My roommate does and I have to make due with what is well know. On the matter of the modem it happens even when another computer is using the connection. I also do not know how to log into this modem. --- Josh Altemoos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from my mobile phone -Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -Veritas vos liberabit -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:55 PM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again > From: "Joshua Ronne Altemoos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:22:24 -0400 > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... You might be suffering from the RADSL vs. ADSL problem. In a sentence: Verizon sells RADSL but they call it "ADSL". > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. *That* could be due to idle timeout. Log into your modem and check for any idle disconnect setting... then disable it. :) > We are considering switching to Comcast. Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring a bell? ;) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On April 30, 2008, Jerry Feldman sent me the following: > I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each > community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few > outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I ssuspect the reliability of Comcast relies heavily on who they bought out to get coverage in that area. I originally had AT&T Broadband, which worked well. Comcast bought that up, and it continued to work well. I know other people who had Adelphia, which was terrible, and when Comcast bought them up it continued to be terrible. > ISP's like MV can give a lot of personal service, but there are just > a few of them left. One of the problems with DSL ISP, regardless of how poor/great the individual ISP is, they're still at the mercy of the phone company to run the lines and make sure they're clean. If you have terrible phone lines, MV can't really help you. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/PGP key ID 43C4819E v4sw5PUhw4/5ln5pr5FOPck4ma4u6FLOw5Xm5l5Ui2e4t4/5ARWb7HKOen6a2Xs5IMr2g6CM signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each > community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few > outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I would prefer > that they open up port 25, but that would tend to let in a lot more > SPAM, so I just let it be. While FIOS is excellent, my bandwidth remains > well above 3Mbps down. It did take me overnight to download Hardy > Heron, but it appeared that the congestion was on the server side. The "consumer level" FiOS blocks you from running anything on port 25 and 80, at least that's what a friend of mine that has it says. You need to pay for business level to get those unblocked. He also has TV service as well and says it's not to bad, but that their DVR sucks. He has an HDTiVo with cable cards. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:55:26 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > We are considering switching to Comcast. > > Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring > a bell? ;) I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I would prefer that they open up port 25, but that would tend to let in a lot more SPAM, so I just let it be. While FIOS is excellent, my bandwidth remains well above 3Mbps down. It did take me overnight to download Hardy Heron, but it appeared that the congestion was on the server side. ISP's like MV can give a lot of personal service, but there are just a few of them left. -- -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: "Joshua Ronne Altemoos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:22:24 -0400 > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... You might be suffering from the RADSL vs. ADSL problem. In a sentence: Verizon sells RADSL but they call it "ADSL". > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. *That* could be due to idle timeout. Log into your modem and check for any idle disconnect setting... then disable it. :) > We are considering switching to Comcast. Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring a bell? ;) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Joshua Ronne Altemoos wrote: > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... > > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. > > We are considering switching to Comcast. > > ~Josh > Just thought I'd add a positive word about VZ/Fairpoint FIOS existing install. I have not had any downtime since getting it installed a little less than a year ago. Just did a test 15591 kbps down and 1653 kbps up Which matches pretty well 'typical' speeds for real world (though I occasionally have seen better upload speeds). ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for uploading... They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this is to powercycle the modem. We are considering switching to Comcast. ~Josh --- Josh Altemoos [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -Veritas vos liberabit -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:02 PM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again > From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:12:01 -0400 > Hi all, > > I just had to deal with the Comcast tech support today to resolve their > unannounced block of my tcp port 25. The first level of tech support > listened to my explanation that I owned some domains and have the email > coming in locally through port 25. The guy explained that an "abuse This topic keeps coming up, over and over, on this list. It's actually partly what this list was designed for. Quoting the mailman page: "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in Linux to discuss Linux, Linux-related issues, and all the evil things that Comcast does." > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to I just switched my service to MV Communications (www.mv.com). I have to say I'm really happy with the service. It's cheap, the company is local (Manchester), and it's run by real people (with real brains, who speak English, etc.). They offer residential and business service, asymmetric and symmetric links, month-to-month subscriptions, etc. I have not encountered any trouble with them blocking traffic, either. As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let Ben finish that sentence. :) For what seems like AGES, I took what the big McISPs fed me and, of course, moaned and groaned about it. But finally, I got fed up, and went "in search of a real ISP". I spent an entire day on it, in fact... calling every ISP in the phone book. Would you know it? MV was the only good option I found. Maybe we can add FairPoint to that list, now? Perhaps you can report back on what *their* TOS allow, what (if anything) they block, and to what extent they're really just rebranding the same Verizon crap. :| ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially > considering that I will probably be moving again in August. Yah, paying provisioning costs when you're only going to need something for a few months is a bummer. But provisioning does cost -- it's going to be the most expensive part of your individual circuit. They don't just flip a switch. They actually have to have a guy drive out to the CO, wire up your pair to the DSLAM, and possibly drive to your place and put a meter on the line to qualify it, and then possibly also go out along the wire route to remove load coils and bridge taps from the poles. Once it's up and running, your particular loop doesn't need much individual attention. (Infrastructure costs are huge, of course, but those are "shared costs", not individual to you.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:51:28 -0400 > Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > > Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every > > call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. > >=20 > > -Bill > > They do look promising, and they appear to have cheaper rates than > FairPoint, but that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially > considering that I will probably be moving again in August. Unfortunately, I was recently in that position as well. When I moved, I asked MV to "transfer" my service to my new location, but they told me they couldn't do that. I was told that I would have to terminate service at the first location, set up service at the second location, and that I'd have to pay the $60 setup fee again. But I knew my alternatives: Comcrap, Verizscam, and dial-up. So I did it and paid the second setup fee. AFAIWC, continuing service with MV was the only acceptable option. But I agree with you: $60 setup fee--no matter how often you move--that's harsh. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 19:46 -0400, Bill Sconce wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:38:31 -0400 > "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. > > > > http://www.mv.com > > > Another vote. As I've also said each time ISPs have been discussed, > I've been using MV for years, and wouldn't consider switching. I'd > tried two other local ISPs, neither of them a telco, and finally > thought to call MV when the second one started double-dipping on its > billing. > > Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every > call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. > > -Bill They do look promising, and they appear to have cheaper rates than FairPoint, but that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially considering that I will probably be moving again in August. -- Coleman Kane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:38:31 -0400 "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. > > http://www.mv.com Another vote. As I've also said each time ISPs have been discussed, I've been using MV for years, and wouldn't consider switching. I'd tried two other local ISPs, neither of them a telco, and finally thought to call MV when the second one started double-dipping on its billing. Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On April 25, 2008, Ben Scott sent me the following: > Okay: GNHLUG has been with MV for several years. We get incredibly > good service from them, and *for free* (because we're a non-profit > with tiny demands). Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. The only thing I don't like about MV is that they don't have a price point between the $75 personal colo (which can't get IP space) and the $250 rackmount colo. I'd like to have a box colocated there, as it's two blocks from my office, but I can't really spent more than $100/mo on it, as it's entirely donation based, and getting donations is like pulling teeth. Instead I'm stuck at another company that doesn't seem to entirely know what they're doing with colo, and I get service interruptions, reverse DNS delegation issues, and weird routing problems on an almost weekly basis. Ah well, get what we pay for, I guess. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/PGP key ID 43C4819E v4sw5PUhw4/5ln5pr5FOPck4ma4u6FLOw5Xm5l5Ui2e4t4/5ARWb7HKOen6a2Xs5IMr2g6CM signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
David W. Aquilina wrote: > Other things I've liked about speakeasy: > > - They have actual intelligent people manning their tech support line > pretty much 24/7 My first tech support call to them a few years ago sold me on their service. I was trying to do something non-standard with the way my multiple IPs got NAT'ed locally and was having an issue interpreting the manual for their DSL modem/router. The guy asks what OS I'm running. I cringe and tell him "Linux". He says, "Hold on. It's faster if I just send you a shell script than to explain it to you. Are you comfortable with bash?" I think I almost fainted. I've been using their service ever since and I'm extremely happy about it. Their actual uptime is better than most T1's I've seen. The only times my service goes down are when power outages exceed my UPS capacity... and maybe an hour or two a year, with the rare exceptions of telco issues, which have happened all of three times in 7 years. Brian ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I can tell, I need to get in touch with their business reps in > order to figure out a business package that works for me. Yah, their residential division cannot sell the business packages, and indeed, are often not even aware of then. If you seriously want to go that route, I suggest identifying yourself to Comcast as a business. If you say you're calling from a residence you'll just confuse them. Say you have a small business office and want service. This isn't even necessarily being misleaning; an individual can run a sole proprietorship pretty much just by saying they are. > I did find their "teleworker" package that must > be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each. Yah, in addition to lousy customer service and draconian AUP, Comcast's rates are also quite high. Good, fast, cheap: Pick none. > When in Cincinnati, I had good service relations with Cincinnati Bell > out there. That may be due in part to them being the only remaining > local telco that wasn't a former vital organ of AT&T... That -- not being a Baby/Big Bell -- actually makes a really big difference most of the time. NH used to have a number of small local telcos, who -- from what I've been told -- generally had good service. But anything that used to be Ma Bell -- forget it. They practically invented bad customer service[1]. "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." [1] Well, actually, banks invented bad customer service, but the telcos automated it. > Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the > inner-city limits. Yah, and even that can be really iffy in New England. Some of the outside plant (lines on the poles, junction boxes, etc.) is incredibly old and outdated. It's not at all uncommon to find stuff over 50 years old, and which hasn't been properly maintained, either. You're lucky to be able to run 28 Kbit/sec modem over it, let alone DSL. In my old hometown of Newton, I remember when they had to replace a large junction box because the tree it was nailed to grew far enough to start pulling the wires off the termination blocks. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from > ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should > be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." > > I am not entirely sure what "ISP" constitutes in that sentence ... The world of telcom regulation is labarynthian. First, some definitions: LEC = Local Exchange Carrier. A company offering local connectivity services in your area. CO = Central Office. The building where LEC equipment lives. The other end of your home telephone line terminates in a CO. ILEC = Incumbent LEC. The company that owns the common infrastructure, such as the CO buildings, the wires on the poles, and so on. Traditionally, one of the "baby bells" or "big bells" leftover from the AT&T divestiture. In NH, it was Verizon. Now it's FairPoint. CLEC = Competitive LEC. A company that doesn't own common infrastructure, but is offering services. They have to lease lines on the poles from the ILEC. Also, they generally rent either equipment, or space in the CO, or both, from the ILEC. So: When an ILEC is offering DSL, they are required by law to offer competitors access to their DSL equipment. Thus, the DSL provider can be different from the ISP. For example, in NH, it may be possible to subscribe to DSL from FairPoint, but with the ISP being Speakeasy. Speakeasy rents a port on the FairPoint DSLAM, but then provides a Speakeasy IP feed to you with it. Generally speaking, you have to go through the ISP. In other words, call Speakeasy, and Speakeasy deals with the ILEC. From my experience, that is a good thing -- dealing with ILECs is a severe pain in the asterisk. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:35 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I realize this *now*, however it doesn't still excuse them from > > unannouncedly denying service. > > Actually, per their ToS, they're within their rights to simply > terminate your account and keep your money. You *did* read that > contract you agreed to, right? ;-) > > FWIW, if you find you want to continue with Comcast (not sure how > you'd reach that conclusion, but...), they offer a premium class of > service which allows hosting services. At work in Amesbury, MA, we're > paying $65/month for something that's pretty speedy, with a static IP > address. YMMV. As far as I can tell, I need to get in touch with their business reps in order to figure out a business package that works for me. Most providers I've used have a "home user w/ static IP option" that's typically a $10 fee above normal rate. I did find their "teleworker" package that must be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each. This is the same package that Time-Warner typically provides in its jurisdictions for less than half that. > > > They [FairPoint] seem "less bad" than Comcast. > > Yah, when the choice was Verizon vs Comcast, I always said that it's > not that I liked Comcast, but that I hated Verizon more. In my > experience, all telcos suck; some just suck more than others. (And > cablecos are telcos, if you didn't know already.) If FairPoint > manages to start Verizon's FTTP rollout back up again, I'll almost > certainly be switching. Cable Internet is usually much faster than > DSL, so that's a tougher call. If I hear really good things about > FairPoint's customer service, I might consider it, but they'd really > have to be astoundingly good things. (Remember, all telcos suck.) When in Cincinnati, I had good service relations with Cincinnati Bell out there. That may be due in part to them being the only remaining local telco that wasn't a former vital organ of AT&T... They actually didn't suck: * They were receptive to my desire to run servers and even accepted my diagnoses using traceroute, ping, etc... * They fixed a cable I dug up and broke in my yard for free * They strung cat-5 in one apartment to improve my DSL access, for free * Customer service was not indignant when confronted with the rare billing error * Didn't get fined for breaking contract Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the inner-city limits. Outside of that (in the burbs) and the CO/square-mile ratio drops so far that you just end up being stuck with cable unless you're lucky. > > -- Ben -- Coleman Kane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in > ... all the evil things that Comcast does." I better call MV and get them to up our bandwidth... ;-) > As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let > Ben finish that sentence. :) Okay: GNHLUG has been with MV for several years. We get incredibly good service from them, and *for free* (because we're a non-profit with tiny demands). Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. http://www.mv.com -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I realize this *now*, however it doesn't still excuse them from > unannouncedly denying service. Actually, per their ToS, they're within their rights to simply terminate your account and keep your money. You *did* read that contract you agreed to, right? ;-) FWIW, if you find you want to continue with Comcast (not sure how you'd reach that conclusion, but...), they offer a premium class of service which allows hosting services. At work in Amesbury, MA, we're paying $65/month for something that's pretty speedy, with a static IP address. YMMV. > They [FairPoint] seem "less bad" than Comcast. Yah, when the choice was Verizon vs Comcast, I always said that it's not that I liked Comcast, but that I hated Verizon more. In my experience, all telcos suck; some just suck more than others. (And cablecos are telcos, if you didn't know already.) If FairPoint manages to start Verizon's FTTP rollout back up again, I'll almost certainly be switching. Cable Internet is usually much faster than DSL, so that's a tougher call. If I hear really good things about FairPoint's customer service, I might consider it, but they'd really have to be astoundingly good things. (Remember, all telcos suck.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:42PM -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > I also came across the following "Acceptable Use Policy" on their > website: > http://632fpbe.fairpoint.com/forms/acceptable_use_policy.php > > It states: > "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from > ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should > be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." I have service from Speakeasy (and have for a couple years before moving up to NH as well) and I've been very pleased with them. Their TOS, regarding servers: "Speakeasy believes in the right of the individual to publish information they feel is important to the world via the Internet. Unlike many ISP's, Speakeasy allows customers to run servers (web, mail, etc.) over their Internet connections, use hubs, and share networks in multiple locations. Any service that causes a disruption in the network integrity of Speakeasy or its vendors, whether directly or indirectly, is strictly prohibited and could result in termination of service." from http://www.speakeasy.net/tos Other things I've liked about speakeasy: - They have actual intelligent people manning their tech support line pretty much 24/7 - One time an account on my system was compromised (shame on me for not setting a strict enough password policy for my friends' accounts!) and was used for naughtiness. Speakeasy attempted to contact me before cutting off service, and once I had assured them I took care of the problem they turned it back on within a couple of minutes. - They'll set the reverse DNS of your IP to whatever you like, as long as the forward lookup exists. Bad things about speakeasy: - A little pricey - They do have a contract - They got bought by BestBuy for Business a little while ago. Service hasn't seemed to suffer for it, though. hope this helps... -David -- David W. Aquilina [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 16:31 -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote: > Coleman Kane writes: > > > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to > > Comcast right now (I don't have a TV for their 99% mind-numbing cable > > programming racket, so I pay their higher net fee). I can also have > > unlimited usage and the sales person tells me that they don't block > > access. They also provide month-to-month service, instead of locking me > > into a contract. Additionally, I can provide my own DSL equipment if I > > have it. > > I would be curious to know if, in Fairpoint's DSL ToS, the term > "unlimited usage" is defined. I would also like to know if in this > ToS the subject of running a server at the customer side of the > connection is discussed. What does the ToS say about these cases? > > A quick perusal of their web site yields no details regarding these > matters. > > Thanks very much, > > --kevin I'm going to discuss this further with their sales person on Monday, hopefully when I set up my new account. I did express that comcast was blocking my service and my desire to handle my own mail for my domains. Whether the person on the other line understood or not, I am not sure of. It sounded to me like they really didn't care. I also came across the following "Acceptable Use Policy" on their website: http://632fpbe.fairpoint.com/forms/acceptable_use_policy.php It states: "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." I am not entirely sure what "ISP" constitutes in that sentence, but it sounds like a livable policy (service is available on an elective basis). We shall see how this goes... -- Coleman Kane ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:12:01 -0400 > Hi all, > > I just had to deal with the Comcast tech support today to resolve their > unannounced block of my tcp port 25. The first level of tech support > listened to my explanation that I owned some domains and have the email > coming in locally through port 25. The guy explained that an "abuse This topic keeps coming up, over and over, on this list. It's actually partly what this list was designed for. Quoting the mailman page: "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in Linux to discuss Linux, Linux-related issues, and all the evil things that Comcast does." > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to I just switched my service to MV Communications (www.mv.com). I have to say I'm really happy with the service. It's cheap, the company is local (Manchester), and it's run by real people (with real brains, who speak English, etc.). They offer residential and business service, asymmetric and symmetric links, month-to-month subscriptions, etc. I have not encountered any trouble with them blocking traffic, either. As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let Ben finish that sentence. :) For what seems like AGES, I took what the big McISPs fed me and, of course, moaned and groaned about it. But finally, I got fed up, and went "in search of a real ISP". I spent an entire day on it, in fact... calling every ISP in the phone book. Would you know it? MV was the only good option I found. Maybe we can add FairPoint to that list, now? Perhaps you can report back on what *their* TOS allow, what (if anything) they block, and to what extent they're really just rebranding the same Verizon crap. :| ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Coleman Kane writes: > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to > Comcast right now (I don't have a TV for their 99% mind-numbing cable > programming racket, so I pay their higher net fee). I can also have > unlimited usage and the sales person tells me that they don't block > access. They also provide month-to-month service, instead of locking me > into a contract. Additionally, I can provide my own DSL equipment if I > have it. I would be curious to know if, in Fairpoint's DSL ToS, the term "unlimited usage" is defined. I would also like to know if in this ToS the subject of running a server at the customer side of the connection is discussed. What does the ToS say about these cases? A quick perusal of their web site yields no details regarding these matters. Thanks very much, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24EMeet me by the knuckles alumni.unh.edu!kdcof the skinny-bone tree. http://kdc-blog.blogspot.com/ -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Apr 25, 2008, at 14:12, Coleman Kane wrote: > So I am now curious if anyone else has moved to FairPoint, and how > they > have been doing with it. I'll be posting more details to my blog when it's confirmed, but I just heard a friend of a friend got DSL installed from Fairpoint within a week of her order, after trying to get it from Verizon for almost a decade. Rumor is they put the DSLAM's in two years ago but weren't turning them on as a matter of policy. Fairpoint would rather have the revenue than such a policy, apparently. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:39 -0400, Shawn O'Shea wrote:
>
>
> Furthermore, I do host my own "websites" and "email" on my
> local
> connection but none of it is used for commercial or business
> use. The
> comcast representative then proceeded to inform me that my
> hosting
> violates their terms and that I can get another provider, or I
> can use
> their "business class" service. He warned me that they'll be
> specifically monitoring my traffic for the next 30 days and if
> I don't
> "stop it" they will turn off my access.
>
> This is Comcast's SOP. Their Terms of Service that you agreed to when
> getting Comcast service says "no servers" , regardless of their
> commercial use or not. I'm not defending them, because I don't agree
> with the policy either, just that it is fact, and that by getting
> their service you agree to abide by their rules, dumb or not.
> From section: I. Prohibited Uses and Activities
> "use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the
> Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone
> outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also
> commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of
> prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to,
> e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;"
> http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
>
> -Shawn
>
Yeah, I realize this *now*, however it doesn't still excuse them from
unannouncedly denying service. They can contact me, they do have my
phone number / email address.
I am probably moving to FairPoint DSL. Generally I've had better service
in the past with DSL than with Cable in the city anyhow. Too bad
FairPoint didn't offer this service back when I first moved here though.
I recommend anybody living in NH to look at FairPoint for internet
access. They seem "less bad" than Comcast. Comcast can go screw
themselves, as far as I am concerned.
--
Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
>
> Furthermore, I do host my own "websites" and "email" on my local
> connection but none of it is used for commercial or business use. The
> comcast representative then proceeded to inform me that my hosting
> violates their terms and that I can get another provider, or I can use
> their "business class" service. He warned me that they'll be
> specifically monitoring my traffic for the next 30 days and if I don't
> "stop it" they will turn off my access.
>
This is Comcast's SOP. Their Terms of Service that you agreed to when
getting Comcast service says "no servers" , regardless of their commercial
use or not. I'm not defending them, because I don't agree with the policy
either, just that it is fact, and that by getting their service you agree to
abide by their rules, dumb or not.
>From section: I. Prohibited Uses and Activities
"use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises
that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your
Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as
public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers
include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and
proxy services and servers;"
http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
-Shawn
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
> Unfortunately, that's not entirely true when a government grants a > monopoly - they get to regulate it. And the government is us (plus > friction). Oh, is the government screwing things up again? - how > unexpected. You can get your internet connection from other ISPs. Be it another cable provider (Earthlink, I used this before switching back to Comcast), DSL (be it Verizion, or another provider like MV.Com that resells Verizion wires, but has their own IP space and their own networking "rules") or even Dial-up or Sat (but you probably wouldn't want to host a server on either of those). Plus it's your local, as in very local, government. Call up your franchise agreement board. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The right solution is ... for people to learn ... You were doing good until that part. HHOS. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Apr 1, 2008, at 17:18, Ben Scott wrote: > It's not your network, > and you don't get to tell others how to run their network, any more > than you can tell me how to run mine, or I can tell you how to run > yours. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true when a government grants a monopoly - they get to regulate it. And the government is us (plus friction). Oh, is the government screwing things up again? - how unexpected. The right solution is to open the market and for people to learn how to use SPF and DKIM. I don't see where it would be a problem for Comcast to relay DKIM/SMIME messages for me, except that the current solution increases Comcast's profits and the aforementioned would probably only break even. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On April 01, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent me the following: > Block port 25 for every subscriber until they apply for a port 25 > usage permit. Then unblock the port. If they abuse port 25, just > yank their permit and re-block the port. For people wanting to send legitimate e-mail, this wouldn't really be all that helpful. Even without an outgoing port 25 block, your IP is still going to be listed in the DUL DNSBLs, so your mail is going to get blocked by a considerable number of destination hosts. For residential outgoing e-mail, you're likely going to need a trusted relay on non-DUL space somewhere if you want reasonable deliverability. As much as I normally dislike Comcast, an outgoing port 25 block does make a lot of sense with the current trends in spamming. > Alternatively, they could just adopt net neutrality as company policy. /me considers a 10-foot pole, decides it isn't long enough. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Forget about paying, even. All they have to do is "permit" port 25 > traffic (that's "PERmit" with stress on the first syllable, not > "perMIT" with stress on the last syllable). i.e., license it: > Block port 25 for every subscriber until they apply for a port 25 > usage permit. Then unblock the port. If they abuse port 25, just > yank their permit and re-block the port. And unfortunatly have the overhead of managing it. Oh, and they would no longer have any differentiation between a business and residential accounts. > Alternatively, they could just adopt net neutrality as company policy. > Now there's an idea. What does net neutrality have to do with not wanting people to set up their own email servers?? -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:18 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would LOVE to start a "real" ISP ... Then do so, and leave us in peace. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:18:50 -0400 > From: "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself. > > I was going to stay away from this aspect of this thread, but > apparently some people cannot get a simple concept through their head, > despite having it explained to them, at length, by several people, on > several occasions. I've become tired of it. > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alternatively, they could just adopt net neutrality as company policy. > > Right, and then we'll remove the locks from your home and your car, > because that's a good idea, too. For that matter, if I start DoS'ing > Comcast's customers do -- pony up the extra money they charge to allow > you to become their problem. Or find a better ISP. Or start your own > ISP. Since you seem to know all about how to run an ISP, I expect Is this response directed, specifically, to me? Or is this more begroaningly addressed to some vaguely generalized population to which you're assuming that I belong? If you address specifically me, I would LOVE to start a "real" ISP, or at least have the opportunity to educate existing ISMs (ISM = Internet Service Monopoly) how to be benevolent dictators. > that will be no problem for you. But stop fsking whining that the > world wasn't built to suit your personal whim. It's not your network, > and you don't get to tell others how to run their network, any more > than you can tell me how to run mine, or I can tell you how to run > yours. > > -- Ben > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself. I was going to stay away from this aspect of this thread, but apparently some people cannot get a simple concept through their head, despite having it explained to them, at length, by several people, on several occasions. I've become tired of it. On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alternatively, they could just adopt net neutrality as company policy. Right, and then we'll remove the locks from your home and your car, because that's a good idea, too. For that matter, if I start DoS'ing you from my Comcast feed, that shouldn't be blocked, either. After all, that's not neutral, either. Controlling outbound TCP/25 is slowing becoming a standard practice on big ISPs, because something like 80% of spam comes from compromised PCs acting as botnet zombies. And spam's a big problem. There are all sorts of solutions, all of which have significant costs and only marginal global effectiveness. If you want to host services -- which only a tiny, tiny fraction of Comcast's customers do -- pony up the extra money they charge to allow you to become their problem. Or find a better ISP. Or start your own ISP. Since you seem to know all about how to run an ISP, I expect that will be no problem for you. But stop fsking whining that the world wasn't built to suit your personal whim. It's not your network, and you don't get to tell others how to run their network, any more than you can tell me how to run mine, or I can tell you how to run yours. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:22:22 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > =>Hi all, > =>Comcast just nailed my port 25 access. > =>Can't telnet to port 25 anywhere that I've tried, but port 587 seesm to > =>be working lots of places. > > Talk to comcast. RCN did this ages ago and now they get an extra > $20/month from me for a "static ip address". It's not really static but it > allows outbound 25 and inbound 80. Forget about paying, even. All they have to do is "permit" port 25 traffic (that's "PERmit" with stress on the first syllable, not "perMIT" with stress on the last syllable). i.e., license it: Block port 25 for every subscriber until they apply for a port 25 usage permit. Then unblock the port. If they abuse port 25, just yank their permit and re-block the port. Alternatively, they could just adopt net neutrality as company policy. Now there's an idea. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Monday, Mar 31st 2008 at 18:09 -, quoth Jeff Kinz: =>Hi all, =>Comcast just nailed my port 25 access. =>Can't telnet to port 25 anywhere that I've tried, but port 587 seesm to =>be working lots of places. Talk to comcast. RCN did this ages ago and now they get an extra $20/month from me for a "static ip address". It's not really static but it allows outbound 25 and inbound 80. => =>I am too much in love with direct control over my email to suffer being =>reduced to 5 emails names and a pop connection for inbound mail, as well as =>loathing the idea of losing the control an SMTP connection gives you. And =>I can't seem to get Comcast to remove the port 25 block as it =>is rumored some have done. => =>So I am looking for reccomendation for SMTP mail relay services. => =>My current inbound load is about 3MB, 400 or so emails per day. =>My outbound load is about 4 - 5 per day (averaged). =>But some days will be 20 or 30 a day with 40 or 50 cc's on each. =>(start of soccer season, I'm the local youth league scheduling =>coordinator) => =>Of course, cheap, reliable and with great customer service =>are always desireable (pick any one.. :-) ) -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
Hey Jeff, Why not use gmail's servers ? AUTH-SMTP works fine, and it's free. When I used to be on Verizon Business DSL w/dynamic ip, I would use gmail as my relay on my CentOS Asterisk box. Gerry (In Greenfield, on Verizon Biz DSL, never any port blocking) On 3/31/08, Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > Comcast just nailed my port 25 access. > Can't telnet to port 25 anywhere that I've tried, but port 587 seesm to > be working lots of places. > > I am too much in love with direct control over my email to suffer being > reduced to 5 emails names and a pop connection for inbound mail, as well > as > loathing the idea of losing the control an SMTP connection gives you. And > I can't seem to get Comcast to remove the port 25 block as it > is rumored some have done. > > So I am looking for reccomendation for SMTP mail relay services. > > My current inbound load is about 3MB, 400 or so emails per day. > My outbound load is about 4 - 5 per day (averaged). > But some days will be 20 or 30 a day with 40 or 50 cc's on each. > (start of soccer season, I'm the local youth league scheduling > coordinator) > > Of course, cheap, reliable and with great customer service > are always desireable (pick any one.. :-) ) > > Ideas anyone? > > Thanks in advance. > > Jeff Kinz > > (Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord no comcast creep will > walk across the street in front of my car. The temptation would > be difficult to overcome... :-) ) > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> My current inbound load is about 3MB, 400 or so emails per day. >> > > I suspect that's high enough to get on their radar. > > No, thats inbound traffic ... So? Their ToS explicitly prohibit hosting services. Sometimes they even enforce it. > ... it used to be over 8 Mb a day ... I've noticed that a lot of people seem to assume that just because they got away with someone once, or even a bunch of times, that it follows that they will always be able to get away with it. :) I'm not saying that inbound traffic is what triggered your recent trouble, just that past behavior has little bearing on what Comcast (hardly a model of consistency at the best of times) does this week or next. > he two times I went over 200 small test nessages outgoing - they > noticed immediately. Outbound traffic tends to attract attention earlier, since that's usually spam from a compromised 'doze computer. >>> And I can't seem to get Comcast to remove the port 25 block as it >>> is rumored some have done. >> >> The surest way to do that is to upgrade to their "business" service. > > No. Never. Well, then, I'm guessing you'll keeping getting what you've got. :-) You can keep the porcupine. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
Ben, This is very useful info and is deeply appreciated. (You can have my porcupine if you want it... :-) ) Thank you. Jeff. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that's right, but somebody who hasn't given up and gone with > > postfix might point out a flaw ... > > Looks good to me. > > In my SMTP configs, I don't have an "M:LOGIN" line, but I have no > idea what that does, so maybe it's needed with DynDNS, or some > distros, or maybe it's just making a default explicit, or whatever. > Presumably one should include it. > > > > like if the current init scripts don't compile anymore (used to have to > > install a sendmail-cf package and run 'm4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > > > /etc/mail/sendmail.cf'). > > One still needs the sendmail-cf package installed, but on hat-like > systems (including CentOS), one can just do: > > make -C /etc/mail > > and it will automatically build all the needed files, databases, maps, > and so on. (There's a Makefile in the /etc/mail directory, and the -C > just tells make(1) to look there.) > > > > Inbound might have to wait until tomorrow! > > Sendmail runs an MSA (Mail Submission Agent -- "SMTP lite") on > TCP/587 by default, but hat-like systems shut that off by default, > too. Their stock sendmail.mc macro config file does have a commented > out line which seems intended to turn this back on. Removing the > comment-out, it would be: > > DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=submission, Name=MSA, M=Ea') > > Run make, restart Sendmail, adjust any firewall rules, and one > should be all set. > > -- Ben > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Comcast just nailed my port 25 access.
> > Can't telnet to port 25 anywhere that I've tried ...
>
> Inbound (to you), outbound, or both?
Both - and I've had it tested by externals scans which I have verified that
the same people who cannot reach my port 25 can still reach my port 22 and
my port 80 as well using grc.com's silly scan tool :-)
I can't telnet to port 25 anywhere I've tried, even though I can telnet to 22,
100, 587 at the same addresses. But of course, they may all have port
25 shut off.
>
> FWIW, I don't seem to be blocked on TCP/25, in or out, in Dover, NH.
>
>
> > My current inbound load is about 3MB, 400 or so emails per day.
>
> I suspect that's high enough to get on their radar.
No, thats inbound traffic and it used to be over 8 Mb a day but I
dropped off the
the LKML and Fedora lists. Inbound traffic never bothered comcast.
The two times I went over 200 small test nessages outgoing - they
noticed immediately.
>
>
> > And I can't seem to get Comcast to remove the port 25 block as it
> > is rumored some have done.
>
> The surest way to do that is to upgrade to their "business" service.
> ToS allows you to host services. In particular, TCP/25 blocks will
> be removed. Prices vary with speed, SLA, location, phase of the moon,
> etc., but in Amesbury, MA, I think we're paying $64/month for 6 down/2
> up (Mbit/sec) with one static address.
No. Never. Especially after spending an hour and a half on the phone
with their tech support manager today who basically lied to my face
over and over again. Did you know that comcast doesn't block
port 25?
I WOULD pay $64 a month to {This scenario has been classified by DHS
for strategic use at Guantanomo Bay } Comcast.
I'd rather poke my self in the arse with a gasoline soaked flaming
porcupine then pay comcast more money. (of course for some people
thats apparently some kind of foreplay... ) :-)
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that's right, but somebody who hasn't given up and gone with > postfix might point out a flaw ... Looks good to me. In my SMTP configs, I don't have an "M:LOGIN" line, but I have no idea what that does, so maybe it's needed with DynDNS, or some distros, or maybe it's just making a default explicit, or whatever. Presumably one should include it. > like if the current init scripts don't compile anymore (used to have to > install a sendmail-cf package and run 'm4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > > /etc/mail/sendmail.cf'). One still needs the sendmail-cf package installed, but on hat-like systems (including CentOS), one can just do: make -C /etc/mail and it will automatically build all the needed files, databases, maps, and so on. (There's a Makefile in the /etc/mail directory, and the -C just tells make(1) to look there.) > Inbound might have to wait until tomorrow! Sendmail runs an MSA (Mail Submission Agent -- "SMTP lite") on TCP/587 by default, but hat-like systems shut that off by default, too. Their stock sendmail.mc macro config file does have a commented out line which seems intended to turn this back on. Removing the comment-out, it would be: DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=submission, Name=MSA, M=Ea') Run make, restart Sendmail, adjust any firewall rules, and one should be all set. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So I am looking for reccomendation for SMTP mail relay services. > > There are some guys in Manchester who do this, and donate services to > GNHLUG. Technically speaking, it's one of their employees who is donating the services to GNHLUG. DynDNS corporate doesn't know us from a hole in the wall. :) That said, by all accounts, they're a good company, both to be a customer of, and an employee of. So I expect they would be a good choice. We've never had any known trouble with GNHLUG's DNS hosting in the year plus we've been using them. Myself, I've used their freebie dynamic DNS for my home, and have no complaints. MV Communications (http://www.mv.com) is the company which is knowingly donating colo hosting to GNHLUG. They are also in Manchester. I can say from personal experience they are excellent. Manchester apparently has a high density of decent, clueful ISPs. Quit hogging 'em, guys! ;-) > Certainly paying $5/mo to them is better than any > deal Comcast is going to give you. No argument there. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Comcast just nailed my port 25 access. > Can't telnet to port 25 anywhere that I've tried ... Inbound (to you), outbound, or both? FWIW, I don't seem to be blocked on TCP/25, in or out, in Dover, NH. > My current inbound load is about 3MB, 400 or so emails per day. I suspect that's high enough to get on their radar. > And I can't seem to get Comcast to remove the port 25 block as it > is rumored some have done. The surest way to do that is to upgrade to their "business" service. ToS allows you to host services. In particular, TCP/25 blocks will be removed. Prices vary with speed, SLA, location, phase of the moon, etc., but in Amesbury, MA, I think we're paying $64/month for 6 down/2 up (Mbit/sec) with one static address. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
Jeff Kinz wrote: > I would have already gone with them except I can't figure out if I will > be able to configure sendmail correctly to work with their system. > (I'm surmising they require SMTP-AUTH which I know nothing about > despite having used sendmail for years. I'm running CentOS 4.5) From their directions, since you're on CentOS, you probably need to: edit /etc/mail/sendmail.mc and add: FEATURE(authinfo, `hash -o /etc/mail/authinfo') define(`SMART_HOST', `outbound.mailhop.org') define(RELAY_MAILER_ARGS, `TCP $h 587') create /etc/mail/authinfo and add: AuthInfo:outbound.mailhop.org "U:username" "P:password" "M:LOGIN" run: makemap hash /etc/mail/authinfo < /etc/mail/authinfo then: /sbin/service sendmail restart I think that's right, but somebody who hasn't given up and gone with postfix might point out a flaw, like if the current init scripts don't compile anymore (used to have to install a sendmail-cf package and run 'm4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > /etc/mail/sendmail.cf'). But I'd say go for it since you're comfortable with them. You have 30 days to bail: http://www.dyndns.com/about/legal/refund.html and I've never had them give up on me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the kids will get their schedule tonight. ;) Inbound might have to wait until tomorrow! -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On March 31, 2008, Jeff Kinz sent me the following: > > > I would have already gone with them except I can't figure out if I will > > be able to configure sendmail correctly to work with their system. > > (I'm surmising they require SMTP-AUTH which I know nothing about > > despite having used sendmail for years. I'm running CentOS 4.5) > > Jumping into the thread late, but I'm going to assume an outbound block > on 25 here, utilizing DynDNS's MailHop Outbound service to get around: > > http://www.dyndns.com/support/kb/mail_servers_and_mailhop_outbound.html#sendmail > (whew, right on the 80 column boundary...) > > Personally, I think switching to Postfix and configuring that for > authenticated "smarthosting" would be easier :D yes, dyndns' services are what we are discussing. However picking up and configuring a new MTA (and making sure it works with all my procmail and bogofilter tools ) is not a learning curve that Iwant to climb right now. Unless you can demonstrate that its only 15-20 minutes long INCLUDING procmail and bogofilter I'd rather stay with sendmail, crufty as it is. :-) That feeling is fading and will continue to fade the longer this goes on.. :-) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On March 31, 2008, Jeff Kinz sent me the following: > I would have already gone with them except I can't figure out if I will > be able to configure sendmail correctly to work with their system. > (I'm surmising they require SMTP-AUTH which I know nothing about > despite having used sendmail for years. I'm running CentOS 4.5) Jumping into the thread late, but I'm going to assume an outbound block on 25 here, utilizing DynDNS's MailHop Outbound service to get around: http://www.dyndns.com/support/kb/mail_servers_and_mailhop_outbound.html#sendmail (whew, right on the 80 column boundary...) Personally, I think switching to Postfix and configuring that for authenticated "smarthosting" would be easier :D -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Kinz wrote: > > So I am looking for reccomendation for SMTP mail relay services. > > There are some guys in Manchester who do this, and donate services to > GNHLUG. :) > >http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/relay.html >http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound.html > > See if any of the ports listed on the relay page are reachable to you. > I don't know if they have any options of you're completely walled off. > UUCP?! (Just to prove myself wrong I googled 'UUCP SSL' and sure enough > it exists). So even on the HTTP(s)-only IntarWeb you might still have > options. > > Of course, cheap, reliable and with great customer service > > are always desireable (pick any one.. :-) ) > > I'm only using them for Backup MX (and domain registration) but so far I > can pick all three. Certainly paying $5/mo to them is better than any > deal Comcast is going to give you. Thanks Bill. I've been looking into Dyndns for a significant portion of the day. I already have my dynamic IP service with them and I have used them for MX backup before as well. I would have already gone with them except I can't figure out if I will be able to configure sendmail correctly to work with their system. (I'm surmising they require SMTP-AUTH which I know nothing about despite having used sendmail for years. I'm running CentOS 4.5) If I could be sure I could get it to work, I would just go ahead and sign up but the email response I got from them was to point at the fragmentary doc they have in their support area that I've had already been through. I suspect its easier than it feels at this point, but I'm feeling pretty wobbly about it all right now, and I have 450 soccer kids waiting for schedules to arrive in the coaches inboxes which I suspect adds to my anxiety. :-} Jeff. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: comcast does it again Port 25
Jeff Kinz wrote: > So I am looking for reccomendation for SMTP mail relay services. There are some guys in Manchester who do this, and donate services to GNHLUG. :) http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/relay.html http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound.html See if any of the ports listed on the relay page are reachable to you. I don't know if they have any options of you're completely walled off. UUCP?! (Just to prove myself wrong I googled 'UUCP SSL' and sure enough it exists). So even on the HTTP(s)-only IntarWeb you might still have options. > Of course, cheap, reliable and with great customer service > are always desireable (pick any one.. :-) ) I'm only using them for Backup MX (and domain registration) but so far I can pick all three. Certainly paying $5/mo to them is better than any deal Comcast is going to give you. If you get it working, I bet others would like to hear about it. -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast!?!?
On Nov 11, 2007, at 08:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been checking a couple of times a year but it's going to > require a line upgrade that Verizon seems unlikely to do, > particularly if another ISP is going to be the beneficiary. I've been doing the same since about '96, when they put a remote terminal in a mile from my house. It's now fed by fiber, but Verizon won't put a DSLAM in it. I don't blame them, they are a public company and there are more profitable places to invest their money - they're not interested in our business and our regulators fail to make them take interest. Unfortunately, the unions are trying to ensure that the status quo is maintained - I wrote bit about that here: http://tinyurl.com/28nggo http://tinyurl.com/2qbevk -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast!?!?
I did. They don't. Actually they do serve Goffstown within 18000' of the switching station. I'm 28000' out. It will probably get here eventually. I've been checking a couple of times a year but it's going to require a line upgrade that Verizon seems unlikely to do, particularly if another ISP is going to be the beneficiary. Mike Miller -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: "mike miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:20:48 -0500 > > > The problem is that they are local. It's still not available in this part > > of Goffstown, but cable is so I'm stuck with Comcast. I guess that's not > > entirely true. I could go back to dial up. > > What is meant by "local", when you're dealing with something the size > of the Internet, varies according to who you talk to (and what their > subnet is, ha ha). MV is based in Manchester, but I personally > wouldn't call that "local". Still, it's still more local than Boston > or New York. > > Have you called them and asked if they serve Goffstown? As they say, > you never know until you know. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast!?!?
> From: "mike miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:20:48 -0500 > The problem is that they are local. It's still not available in this part > of Goffstown, but cable is so I'm stuck with Comcast. I guess that's not > entirely true. I could go back to dial up. What is meant by "local", when you're dealing with something the size of the Internet, varies according to who you talk to (and what their subnet is, ha ha). MV is based in Manchester, but I personally wouldn't call that "local". Still, it's still more local than Boston or New York. Have you called them and asked if they serve Goffstown? As they say, you never know until you know. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast!?!?
The problem is that they are local. It's still not available in this part of Goffstown, but cable is so I'm stuck with Comcast. I guess that's not entirely true. I could go back to dial up. Mike Miller - Original Message - From: "TARogue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Comcast!?!? > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Tony Lambiris wrote: > >> Can anyone recommend a good broadband provider in the Manchester area? >> Im with Comcast right now, refuse to go to Verizon due to their >> company practices, curious if anyone out there is using something >> else? >> > MV Communications offers DSL for rates from $25 to $75 for residential > usage ($25 to $85 for commercial). > > They're a great local resource. > Tom > > -- > TARogue (Linux user number 234357) > "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid" > -- Tengis (from Hardforum.com) > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Interestingly, I *was* able to find one company (yes, ONE company out >of all those listed in the yellow pages under "Internet Service") that >was able to offer a dry loop at my location (downtown Dover). Even >more interesting is the fact that this company, MV Communications, >seems to be the same company that hosts GNHLUG.org. >Could we have actually, finally, found a fair, competent, and >affordable ISP? I do hope so. Umm, hasn't MV always been a fair, competent, and affordable ISP? Domain Name: MV.COM Updated Date: 10-oct-2006 Creation Date: 03-feb-1988 Expiration Date: 04-feb-2010 Mallett, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, they were around before the Internet went commercial, back when dial-up was "cool". -Ric Werme ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast
Ric Werme wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Interestingly, I *was* able to find one company (yes, ONE company out >> of all those listed in the yellow pages under "Internet Service") that >> was able to offer a dry loop at my location (downtown Dover). Even >> more interesting is the fact that this company, MV Communications, >> seems to be the same company that hosts GNHLUG.org. >> > > >> Could we have actually, finally, found a fair, competent, and >> affordable ISP? I do hope so. >> > > Umm, hasn't MV always been a fair, competent, and affordable ISP? > >Domain Name: MV.COM >Updated Date: 10-oct-2006 >Creation Date: 03-feb-1988 >Expiration Date: 04-feb-2010 > Mallett, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Of course, they were around before the Internet went commercial, back > when dial-up was "cool". > > -Ric Werme > > You betcha! I've been using MV since "the early days", and I keep coming back. Seems the "big guys" always manage to find a way of shoo-ing their smaller customers away, but MV keeps hanging in there, and I keep finding they're the only reasonable outfit left. --Bruce ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast!?!?
Why I do agree that Comcast violated Net Neutrality, I do want to mention that Comcast and all their previous cable companies, AT&T BB, Mediaone and Continental Cable Vision had a no server clause. One of the original reasons was that cable TV systems had a very low available bandwidth for upload. I'm not sure if this restriction still exists. I have never had them block any of my incoming ports including 80. On the up side, my cable has had virtually no downtime since Comcast took over from AT&T BB. The bottom line for me is that they provide me with a very reliable class of service with good download bandwidths. I've been downloading SuSE 10.3 for the installfest tomorrow at a bandwidth of just over 6Mbps. On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:44:49 -0800 (PST) Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Ted/everyone, > > Ted, I respect your opinion but I beg to differ. > Comcast is no longer on a vendor list of mine. First > it was banning "servers", then bandwidth caps and now > this. Net Neutrality is important to me and I make my > choice know with my $$'s and thats my perogative. > Consumers should have input regarding the internet > they want to see and feel free to demand what they > want from the companies they support. Companies > should recognize that consumers have choice and will > make it based upon the intersection of their offerings > and the consumers wants. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast [ was Fedora Eight is out on the streets!]
On Nov 9, 2007 11:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Instead, these companies claimed that, in order > to provide DSL, they had to line share with Verizon and that > (drumroll, please) Verizon had "not yet" released the rights to line > share for dry loop service. Yah, the big telcos are just as evil as the big cable cos. And saying either of them "don't get it" isn't strictly accurate. They just have no interest in giving you what you want. Comcast will only sell Internet with TV because they make more money that way. (And they have a near-monopoly so it don't matter.) Likewise, Verizon doesn't want to give people the opportunity to not give them money. The good local players (MV is one) will have been around long enough to know how to deal with the ILEC and wrangle service out of them. > Clearly, the telco is doing *something* right. It's actually MV that's doing something right here. There are two scenarios for non-ILEC DSL. One is a true dry pair: The ILEC (Verizon) just provides a pair of copper wires from your place to the CO. MV co-locates their equipment in the CO, and connects that pair directly to MV equipment. The other scenario is that it's actually not a dry pair, but resold ILEC DSL with third-party Internet (MV being the third party in this scenario). Verizon provides DSL to their CO and DSLAM, and then a PVC (or something like a PVC; I think the technology is different these days, but it's the same idea) to MV's network center. The IP feed goes from MV to your place; Verizon is just carrying bits; they don't care that you're running IP in it. Either way, you end up on MV's routers and transit feeds, and that's a good thing. MV is a top-notch provider, so I would expect they haven't oversubscribed their network to the point of congestion, and I would expect their routers are configured to honor TOS bits. ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, the company that owns the wires on the poles CO = Central Office, building where the ILEC keeps their equipment DSL = Digital Subscriber Line, bits instead of voice going from the CO to your house DSLAM = DSL Access Multiplexer, the CO equipment that terminates and concenstrates DSLs PVC = Permanent Virtual Circuit, a configuration entity on a packet-switched network that makes a path act like it's on a circuit-switched network, with committed data rates dry pair = a copper circuit, provided by the ILEC, but connected at each end to non-ILEC equipment -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
