Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 10:33, Jon maddog Hall wrote: ... > So if you want to download music, etc. you can get the lower-cost DSL > service. > > But if you want to run a business and have a web server...you pay. > > Just a guess, but an educated one. > > md Just got set up with Fios, and I did call and grill them on the very point of the prohibition of running any server. I've got an interesting reaction. The person at Verizon Fios emphasized that what they meant is installing and running a "server class" computer at your home. I grilled her specifically about running a website off of a *workstation*, and she indicated to me that that would be perfectly OK, along with FTP, P2P, or anything else us geeks hold so dear. So it seems to me that Bill is somewhat correct in stating that they simply don't want you becoming the next eBay or whatever. They don't want YOU, the consumer or residential guy becoming Ev1 or RackSpace on their lines. Well, I do have some intentions of doing something similar. So I also inquired about sitting up a SONET ring, etc. off of that connection, and this is where the lights started going out with the person I spoke with. Basically I was told such things are *probably* possible, but would be "much more expensive", and that I would need to talk to a different department. Well yeah, I could've guess it would be "much more expensive". Duh. I just wanted ballpark dollar amount so I could see if it would fit in with my current operations. She could not give me that. They have a few tiers of "business class" service, where you can get a static IP address and somewhat higher bandwidth, though it remains asymmetric. Best you can do it seems is a 30mbit down/ 5mbit up. Be that as it may, I am simply floored that Verizon was able to solve the "last mile" problem at all. They installed fibre right up to a box in my basement which converts the telephone and Internet connection to whatever needs to go across that fabric. They also went to great lengths with running CAT5 to my home office, fishing the cable through walls, and the like -- all for free. Also to my delight they took down the ugly mess of wires I had accumulated over the years with past frame-relay, ISDN, DSL, and multiple POTS phone lines running from the utility pole to my house. They were very professional and courteous and got the job *done*. A new leaf for Verizon service, considering what I experienced with them in the past. It was even more to my delight to see that the Fios is *much faster* than my Comcast broadband connection. I will be happy to cut ties with Comcast completely once I am confident the Fios stuff is stable. Comcast gave me hell recently about having port 80 open on my line (I was running a test web server and left it open) as well as spooking me out about knowing I was running multiple ssh connections *on a different port other than 22* and some other things as well. What, they were monitoring my connection and sniffing my packets? I am *so glad* my email goes out encrypted across an ssl connection between my workstations and my dedicated servers. Those clowns would probably be reading my email otherwise. Everything I do beyond web browsing goes out encrypted, even my NNTP newsgroup activities. Not that I am doing anything untoward; it is just that I don't want anyone other than the intended recipients reading my stuff! And since some of it is of a political nature, I remain especially concerned. Just because I may be paranoid does not mean they are not out to get me!!! Of course, I could set up a VPN and even my web browsing will be covered as well. Hmmm Not that I trust Verizon anymore than I do Comcast, but Comcast went out of their way to bother me about specific ports, forcing me to close them or else loose service. Since my Internet service *is* my bread and butter these days, I don't do well with threats like that. Verizon categorically stated they would not have any problems with such. Also, Verizon Fios will be costing me considerably less than Comcast. Comcast forces you to also have cable service which I have no interest in -- bloody nothing worth watching anymore, and the few times I do see something worth watching does not justify the cost. Besides I can download them with BitTorrent if I must. Fios will be much cheaper, is much faster, and much more permissive in how you use the service despite the "boiler plate" language in their service contract. I am told by the technicians who installed the Fios that I am the 2nd person in my local neighborhood to have it, and apparently the first one "on the block", or street in my case. So I may be a bit smug about it. ;-) Oh, and about the OS support: There is a "registration" process that requires IE on Windows, and apparently this is to set up your Verizon email and some other Internet services with Verizon that I have no interest in. Since I run Linux on my w
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On 1/24/06, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Stuff deleted. Be that as it may, I am simply floored that Verizon was able to solve the"last mile" problem at all. They installed fibre right up to a box in mybasement which converts the telephone and Internet connection to whatever needs to go across that fabric. They also went to great lengths with runningCAT5 to my home office, fishing the cable through walls, and the like -- allfor free.You'll notice that Speakeasy, etc will *never* be over that Fios line. It's not subject to the telecom law that the telephone network is. So they don't have to share it. Just like the cable companies. That's why they did it. -- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. - Daniel Webster
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
You'll notice that Speakeasy, etc will *never* be over that Fios line. It's not subject to the telecom law that the telephone network is. So they don't have to share it. Just like the cable companies. That's why they did it. But the cable companies allow Earthlink over cable (that's what I have for service). So just because they're not forced to, doesn't mean they won't. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On 1/24/06, Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'll notice that Speakeasy, etc will *never* be over that Fios line.> It's not subject to the telecom law that the telephone network is. So> they don't have to share it. Just like the cable companies. That's why > they did it.But the cable companies allow Earthlink over cable (that's what I havefor service).Yes they do. But I bet you're subject to all of Comcast's restrictions and terms. Verizon DSL offers subscribers Yahoo!. Not the free stuff, but the paid stuff. I assume it's to transition out of the email/newsgroup/etc business.It's very different from DSL via Speakeasy, mv.com, etc where you have different terms and restrictions from Verizon DSL. So just because they're not forced to, doesn't mean they won't.-- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. - Daniel Webster
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On 1/24/06, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just got set up with Fios ... First, thank you for posting that. The technical details were very interesting, and the commentary on what Verizon said, and the on-site service they delivered, were equally so. I'm frankly amazed to hear Verizon delivering such good service. Next, I'm going to respond to a few of your statements that all ultimately fall under the category heading of "Information Assurance" -- what most people mean when they say "security". There may be some mildly harsh words ahead. Don't take it too personally; I'm trying to offer an honest critique. > The person at Verizon Fios emphasized that what they meant is installing and > running a "server class" computer at your home. I grilled her specifically > about running a website off of a *workstation*, and she indicated to me that > that would be perfectly OK, along with FTP, P2P, or anything else us geeks > hold so dear. I've been told all sorts of things by all manner of sales reps over the years. I'm sure you have, too. Then when push comes to shove, they say, "I'm sorry, sir, the representative you were speaking to was mistaken." Verbal assurances are not worth the paper they're written on. You repeatedly state your Internet feed is of a critical nature. If you really mean that, I suggest obtaining a written SLA (Service Level Agreement) guaranteeing what you need. I'd be willing to bet Verizon will refuse to provide such. Point being: Big nasty evil ugly companies like Verizon are notorious for pulling the rug out from under people. If you're willing to take their word for it when their written documents say otherwise, you may well end up deserving what you get. > Comcast gave me > hell recently about having port 80 open on my line (I was running a test web > server and left it open) as well as spooking me out about knowing I was > running multiple ssh connections *on a different port other than 22* and > some other things as well. What, they were monitoring my connection and > sniffing my packets? More then likely, after they discovered an open listener for a well-known service they explicitly forbid. ISPs run sniffers all the time. This should not be a surprise. > I am *so glad* my email goes out encrypted across > an ssl connection between my workstations and my dedicated servers. Ummm yah. Email. "Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an armored car to deliver credit card information from someone living in a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench." -- Gene "spaf" Spafford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theatre > Besides I can download them with > BitTorrent if I must. Given the current legal climate with the media cartel suing everyone they can find, you might want to think twice before posting about downloading pirated content in a public forum such as this one. (But hey, at least the connection to your mail relay was encrypted before you broadcasted it to the entire world.) There's paranoia, and then there is risk management. Paranoia is thinking everyone is out to get you, and responding erratically in ways that don't really help.Risk management is thinking everyone is out to get you, and taking appropriate countermeasures to defend against identified threats. It appears you are doing more of the former then the latter. -- Ben "Yah, I'm an asshole" Scott ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
The person at Verizon Fios emphasized that what they meant is installing and running a "server class" computer at your home. I grilled her specifically about running a website off of a *workstation*, and she indicated to me that that would be perfectly OK, along with FTP, P2P, or anything else us geeks hold so dear. I have a friend with FIOS, he runs a webserver on his box at home, he had to move it to port 8080 because port 80 was blocked. This wasn't much of a problem, but just an FYI. He was told the business class had no such blocking. Also, Verizon Fios will be costing me considerably less than Comcast. Comcast forces you to also have cable service which I have no interest in -- bloody nothing worth watching anymore, and the few times I do see something worth watching does not justify the cost. Besides I can download them with BitTorrent if I must. Fios will be much cheaper, is much faster, and much more permissive in how you use the service despite the "boiler plate" language in their service contract. Comcast does not -force- you to get cable server. I can get Comcast internet without TV service, but they charge you a little extra. It actually works out cheaper to get the very basic local only stations and internet, then to get internet alone. That is far from forcing you however. And remember, Comcast (back in the cays of MediaOne) was much more permissive, nearly everybody I knew ran a full blown web/mail/ftp server on their box via their cable internet connection. Since they also say that they won't block anything on the business class line, expect stuff to be blocked on the consumer lines very soon. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Tuesday, Jan 24th 2006 at 07:12 -0500, quoth Fred: =>On Wednesday 18 January 2006 10:33, Jon maddog Hall wrote: =>... =>> So if you want to download music, etc. you can get the lower-cost DSL =>> service. =>> =>> But if you want to run a business and have a web server...you pay. =>> =>> Just a guess, but an educated one. =>> =>> md => =>Just got set up with Fios, and I did call and grill them on the very point of =>the prohibition of running any server. => The idea that Verizon would allow you to run a low-volume server is highly intruiging to me. I am running with RCN and I really can't complain in the slightest. I get 11Mb/s plus they don't block me from anything. The catch is that the won't block outgoing port 25 and incoming port 80 unless you pay them an extra $20/month for "static address" service. Their static address is still allocated via DHCP but it gets tied to your MACADDR. But the address they give you is still from a DHCP pool so a number of larger providers require that you create a mailertable entry to route it through RCN's server. But it is intruiging. -- 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: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Jan 24, 2006, at 09:23, Ben Scott wrote: Ummm yah. Email. "Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an armored car to deliver credit card information from someone living in a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench." -- Gene "spaf" Spafford So, I routinely exchange mail with folks whose MTA's do opportunistic encryption (especially those who work for military contractors). Postfix makes this easy. So, if we both do IMAPS, and SMTPS, where's the cardboard box? And, great review, Fred! Wish it was in the cards for us. -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: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:51:54AM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote: > On Jan 24, 2006, at 09:23, Ben Scott wrote: > > > Ummm yah. Email. > > > >"Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an > >armored car to deliver credit card information from someone living in > >a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench." -- Gene "spaf" > >Spafford > > So, I routinely exchange mail with folks whose MTA's do opportunistic > encryption (especially those who work for military contractors). > Postfix makes this easy. So, if we both do IMAPS, and SMTPS, where's > the cardboard box? Do they use Windows? Do they keep their systems up to date with the latest patches (Windows, Linux, or Mac?) There's a number of other points of entry once the data is on their hard drives. SMTPS and IMAPS are both still the armored car: the end destination is the cardboard box. -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
So since it's not guaranteed to be 100% secure, there's no reason to bother at all. That's silly. Secure the parts you *can* secure easily, then move on to the next item on the list, and continue securing. Are you 100% secure? No... are you better secured than someone who says "it's impossible, forget trying" ... I think so. --DTVZ
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On 1/24/06, Drew Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So since it's not guaranteed to be 100% secure, there's no reason to bother > at all. That's silly. That's not the argument. The issue is that if one is concerned about a communication being read by others, one should not use the technological equivalent of using post card to transmit it. Or, in the OP's case, hire an armored car to carry the post card from his house to the post office in the next town. In this case, we're talking about creating an encrypted tunnel to a machine that's owned by a third party ISP, under their physical control. Then we use that tunnel to relay email which immediately goes cleartext over the wire, on said third party's network. Keep in mind that the objection in the first place was that ISPs can read the email. So we're tunneling email to another server where a different ISP can then read the email there! Further, In at least one case in point, the email is not only cleartext, but sent to a public mailing list, which is repeated to hundreds of subscribers and several public, indexed, searchable mail archives. If securing email is the goal, then the email message should be encrypted at the start, and decrypted by a trusted recipient at the end. If creating the secure tunnel were actually a first step in a comprehensive security plan to secure the email message end-to-end, your argument would have some weight. But there is absolutely no indication that is ever going to happen. Once an end-to-end encrypted transport is established, then one can start to consider things like "Can the guy at the other end be trusted to keep what I say confidential?" or even "Can the guy at the other end be trusted to use GPG correctly?". But we're nowhere near that. As an aside: Phrases like "100% secure" are inherently bogus. As Schneier says, security is process. It is not a scalar quantity. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:23, Ben Scott wrote: > On 1/24/06, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just got set up with Fios ... > > First, thank you for posting that. The technical details were very > interesting, and the commentary on what Verizon said, and the on-site > service they delivered, were equally so. I'm frankly amazed to hear > Verizon delivering such good service. > > Next, I'm going to respond to a few of your statements that all > ultimately fall under the category heading of "Information Assurance" > -- what most people mean when they say "security". There may be some > mildly harsh words ahead. Don't take it too personally; I'm trying > to offer an honest critique. Go for it Scott, you security czar! Besides, I have rather thick skin. ... > I've been told all sorts of things by all manner of sales reps over > the years. I'm sure you have, too. Then when push comes to shove, > they say, "I'm sorry, sir, the representative you were speaking to was > mistaken." Verbal assurances are not worth the paper they're written > on. I know. As I said, I don't trust them, but I'm willing to give then another chance for now. > You repeatedly state your Internet feed is of a critical nature. If > you really mean that, I suggest obtaining a written SLA (Service Level > Agreement) guaranteeing what you need. I'd be willing to bet Verizon > will refuse to provide such. Interesting idea, and you are probably correct. However, let me see. > Point being: Big nasty evil ugly companies like Verizon are > notorious for pulling the rug out from under people. If you're > willing to take their word for it when their written documents say > otherwise, you may well end up deserving what you get. If they do, I can always go back to Crumcast with tail tucked under... > > Comcast gave me > > hell recently about having port 80 open on my line (I was running a test > > web server and left it open) as well as spooking me out about knowing I > > was running multiple ssh connections *on a different port other than 22* > > and some other things as well. What, they were monitoring my connection > > and sniffing my packets? > > More then likely, after they discovered an open listener for a > well-known service they explicitly forbid. ISPs run sniffers all the > time. This should not be a surprise. That they do sniffing does not surprise me. That they singled me out in particular, especially since I had that port open for *years* does. > > I am *so glad* my email goes out encrypted across > > an ssl connection between my workstations and my dedicated servers. > > Ummm yah. Email. > > "Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an > armored car to deliver credit card information from someone living in > a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench." -- Gene "spaf" > Spafford Yes, I know, but at least I know no one at Verizon or Comcast will be able to see the packets. Why make it easy for them? If someone wants to see what I wrote they'll have to go out to California and intercept the packets there, or target the destination. They just won't be able to go to the local Verizon/Comcast office and grab them. There are no perfect secure solutions other than not connecting to the Internet at all. And even then... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theatre > > > Besides I can download them with > > BitTorrent if I must. > > Given the current legal climate with the media cartel suing everyone > they can find, you might want to think twice before posting about > downloading pirated content in a public forum such as this one. (But > hey, at least the connection to your mail relay was encrypted before > you broadcasted it to the entire world.) Of course, I did not say it was illegal. For all you know I might be talking about something on NPR or the like. For shows, I usually go buy the DVD sets anyway, if available. Most of what I'm interested in is pretty obscure and eclectic and not always available in mainstream outlets. > There's paranoia, and then there is risk management. Paranoia is > thinking everyone is out to get you, and responding erratically in > ways that don't really help. Well, in those days where I were NOT paranoid and they DID come out to get me, they caught me unawares and I did not handle those instances properly. This time, I'm prepared, but don't know where or when they'll strike next. > Risk management is thinking everyone > is out to get you, and taking appropriate countermeasures to defend > against identified threats. It appears you are doing more of the > former then the latter. Well, as always, I never tell the *whole* story in open forums except on rare occasions... > -- Ben "Yah, I'm an asshole" Scott I appreciate your candor. -Fred ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 11:45, Ben Scott wrote: ... > In this case, we're talking about creating an encrypted tunnel to a > machine that's owned by a third party ISP, under their physical > control. Then we use that tunnel to relay email which immediately > goes cleartext over the wire, on said third party's network. Keep in > mind that the objection in the first place was that ISPs can read the > email. So we're tunneling email to another server where a different > ISP can then read the email there! Further, In at least one case in > point, the email is not only cleartext, but sent to a public mailing > list, which is repeated to hundreds of subscribers and several public, > indexed, searchable mail archives. What I am really concerned about is some "ganster agency" using a blanket sniffing technology like "Carn1v0re", for instance, to do a broad sweep of packet gathering so they can sift through it later. If I am targeted in particular, all bets are off anyway. > If securing email is the goal, then the email message should be > encrypted at the start, and decrypted by a trusted recipient at the > end. Yes, and the big problem with that is the technical knowledge currently required to handle to encryption technology like, say GPG. Outside of us geeks, it's simply beyond the average person. Watch them eyes glaze over when you try to explain the difference between "public key" and "private key", "plain text" and "encrypted text", "passphrases" and why they need to be so long, "key rings", and the like. I basically would have to go around to each of my non-tech buddies and set their encryption system up for them. That's not really an option for me, much as I would love to have it all in place. > If creating the secure tunnel were actually a first step in a > comprehensive security plan to secure the email message end-to-end, > your argument would have some weight. But there is absolutely no > indication that is ever going to happen. I have certain things in mind I want to protect against, to reduce the probably of, to make more difficult than just running ethereal at the local ISP. If it clears out 90% of the threat, I'm happy for now. > Once an end-to-end encrypted transport is established, then one can > start to consider things like "Can the guy at the other end be trusted > to keep what I say confidential?" or even "Can the guy at the other > end be trusted to use GPG correctly?". But we're nowhere near that. In all things there is a cost. The real equation is the cost-benefit-value-risk analysis. How valuable is what I am going going to say to me is, what is the risk if the wrong eyes were to see it, what is the cost to reduce the chance of the wrong eyes seeing it, and is it worth the cost to avoid the risk? If by doing something as easy and simple and "free" as using IMAPS will increase the costs and efforts of someone who wishes to easedrop on the local packets and the like, then that added measure is worth it. Setting up an encrypted VPN channel, say, to all of my contacts machines would be much more secure, but would be costly to do, especially since many of them don't even have a clue as to what a VPN is. > As an aside: Phrases like "100% secure" are inherently bogus. As > Schneier says, security is process. It is not a scalar quantity. Agreed. But the costs of getting even near 100% may not be worth it in the long run. -Fred ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
Well my service is scheduled to be installed Feb 3rd. Sean ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:17, Fred wrote: That they do sniffing does not surprise me. That they singled me out in particular, especially since I had that port open for *years* does. Devil's Advocate: they may be using a QoS device that prioritizes traffic by type. You can't do that without packet inspection. If it also keeps logs to help with customer service issues they might know that you're running ssh traffic without targeting you. Attributing to malice and all that jazz, -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: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
"Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am running with RCN and I really can't complain in the slightest. You're the first person I've heard say *that* about RCN. > I get 11Mb/s plus they don't block me from anything. The catch > is that the won't block outgoing port 25 and incoming port 80 unless you > pay them an extra $20/month for "static address" service. So, *if* you pay them more, you get less freedom? That statement seems backwards. Why would they charge you to block ports? If I'm paying a higher rate for a static IP, I would expect better service and more freedom. Are you sure it's not the other way around. If *don't* pay them for a static IP, then they *will* block various ports? -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
On Thursday, Jan 26th 2006 at 08:47 -0500, quoth Paul Lussier: =>"Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: => =>> I am running with RCN and I really can't complain in the slightest. => =>You're the first person I've heard say *that* about RCN. => =>> I get 11Mb/s plus they don't block me from anything. The catch =>> is that the won't block outgoing port 25 and incoming port 80 unless you =>> pay them an extra $20/month for "static address" service. => =>So, *if* you pay them more, you get less freedom? That statement =>seems backwards. Why would they charge you to block ports? If I'm =>paying a higher rate for a static IP, I would expect better service =>and more freedom. => =>Are you sure it's not the other way around. If *don't* pay them for a =>static IP, then they *will* block various ports? Sorry, I misspoughk. I pay an extra $20/m for the priv of allowing incoming 80 and outgoing 25. -- 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: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
"Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sorry, I misspoughk. I pay an extra $20/m for the priv of allowing > incoming 80 and outgoing 25. Okay, now that's more like it. Everyone I know on RCN is most assuredly not paying extra for anything :) And they all complain they can't use port 25 outgoing unless directly to an RCN smtp server. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Verizon (FiOS) (Off Topic?) I have it!
[My apologies for the delay in my response, but circumstances prevented my from giving this a proper reply until now.] On 1/24/06, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've been told all sorts of things by all manner of sales reps over >> the years. I'm sure you have, too. Then when push comes to shove, >> they say, "I'm sorry, sir, the representative you were speaking to was >> mistaken." Verbal assurances are not worth the paper they're written >> on. > > I know. As I said, I don't trust them, but I'm willing to give then another > chance for now. You will find no end of people on this list (or off it) willing to testify that a verbal promise from Verizon is worthless. I admit to being mystified as to why you'll encrypt your email to keep "Them" from spying on it, but think vague reassurances from a corporate salesdroid on an actual deliverable service are worth anything at all. >> You repeatedly state your Internet feed is of a critical nature. If >> you really mean that, I suggest obtaining a written SLA (Service Level >> Agreement) guaranteeing what you need. I'd be willing to bet Verizon >> will refuse to provide such. > > Interesting idea, and you are probably correct. However, let me see. That was more rhetorical then a serious suggested course of action. The primary difference between a "consumer" feed and a "business" feed -- aside from price, of course -- is the SLA. Check the fine print. Consumer feeds are basically "best effort". If it stops working, or doesn't work the way you want it to, the provider will try to fix it, but isn't making any promises. If they don't like what you're doing, they'll cut the feed and won't look back. When you buy a business feed for orders of magnitude more money, you're mainly buying a written contract that spells out acceptable usage on your part, and acceptable performance on the provider's part. The SLA will state things like uptime, packet loss, and round-trip-time, and provide legal penalties against the provider if they fail to deliver. That's the big difference, and one that a lot of people fail to appreciate, until their $50/month consumer feed stops working and they can't do anything about it. Again, this normally doesn't matter much, but you have repeatedly emphasized the critical nature of your Internet connection, and specified that you want a reliable connection with a fairly liberal AUP. Did you really mean that, or was that just idle talk? >> More then likely, after they discovered an open listener for a >> well-known service they explicitly forbid. ISPs run sniffers all the >> time. This should not be a surprise. > > That they do sniffing does not surprise me. That they singled me out in > particular, especially since I had that port open for *years* does. You say they singled you out in particular. Do you have any evidence for that statement, or are you just assuming that since your phone is the one that rang, they must be persecuting you in particular? It's rather more likely they finally (after being asleep at the wheel for years) got around to checking to see who is doing what, and found a few people whose usage pattern didn't fit the norm (i.e., downloading email, porn, and music via HTTP, POP3, and/or the Napster-clone-of-the-month). Since your usage pattern was one of those, they investigated, and found you violating their ToS. I know others who have been ToS'ed from Comcast; you're hardly unique in that. Getting away with a violation for years doesn't mean it isn't a violation. >>> Besides I can download them with >>> BitTorrent if I must. >> >> Given the current legal climate with the media cartel suing everyone >> they can find, you might want to think twice before posting about >> downloading pirated content in a public forum such as this one. > > Of course, I did not say it was illegal. For all you know I might be > talking about something on NPR or the like. The statement about using BitTorrent was immediately preceded with commentary on cable television. It's reasonable to assume that "then" was referring to what you were talking about, not random other things. Remember: Defending yourself to the list's regular readership isn't needed; it's the MPAA (which is engaged in a public, well-documented campaign to target such activity) legal hounds you have to worry about. Sure, they would lack hard evidence, but they can afford more and better lawyers then you. On 1/24/06, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [regarding encrypting the path to your SMTP relay] > What I am really concerned about is some "ganster agency" using a blanket > sniffing technology like "Carn1v0re", for instance, to do a broad sweep of > packet gathering so they can sift through it later. That's what confuses me. You're not protecting against that. Encryption is not a silver bullet. You have to break it down into threat/countermeasure analysis. For this discussion, the proposed countermeasure is "encrypt
