* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florian Weimer) [Mon 04 Apr 2005, 22:25 CEST]:
* Gadi Evron:
Lastly, I suppose that as a geek ISP, one might want to sell more
bandwidth. After all, the more sh*t that goes through the tubes the
bigger tubes people buy.
Only if the end user market is ready for volume
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stephen J. Wilcox:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Anyone ever considered just closing these ports? People will pay you
more and just for your ACL services! You can put all your troubles
you would need to do this on a per
senders and sender-isp's have a long list of things they have to do in order
to not be compared to toxic polluters (a term i believe michael rathbun coined
for use in this context, and for which i am thankful.) don't try to make this
about right-to-communicate or who-gets-to-decide.
I don't see
On 04/04/05, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most people won't care about their freedom if they can do whatever
they want by asking for it. Most users want Web, Mail and IM. Three
things. How are any of these guys who could easily get their privileges
(and your responsibilities) back
J.D. Falk wrote:
On 04/04/05, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most people won't care about their freedom if they can do whatever
they want by asking for it. Most users want Web, Mail and IM. Three
things. How are any of these guys who could easily get their privileges
(and your
Gadi Evron wrote:
Between spam, spyware and worms, not to mention scans ad attacks, I
suppose that a large percentage of the Internet already is pay-for-junk?
No. Most of the Internet is p2p file sharing, which does not fall into
the categories mentioned. (at least mostly it doesn't)
Pete
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:46:42PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
As a geek, do you not want the Internet to still be here *completely*
OPEN and FREE in the future?
And this is the point question.
Much innovation is due to the open end-to-end characteristic of the
current network.
By all means,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Anyone ever considered just closing these ports? People will pay you
more and just for your ACL services! You can put all your troubles
you would need to do this on a per customer interface basis ie not at an
aggregation point but on each ppp
* Gadi Evron:
Anyone ever considered just closing these ports? People will pay you
more and just for your ACL services!
People call me mad because I designed a system which can handle
10,000+ ACL entries with negligible personal overhead (keep in mind
that you cannot give end users direct
* Gadi Evron:
As a geek, do you not want the Internet to still be here *completely*
OPEN and FREE in the future?
And this is not related to blocking. Universal liability for content,
be it your own or from third parties, is far more threatening. At
least in a country which can offer a
As a point of discussion regarding port 25 filtering. Let's
look at two possible future models:
For both these models, today's weak-security SMTP is still used for
email. The ISP having the sender of email is called SendISP.
The ISP with the recipient mailserver is called
RecvISP.
MODEL A: ISPs
* Stephen J. Wilcox:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Anyone ever considered just closing these ports? People will pay you
more and just for your ACL services! You can put all your troubles
you would need to do this on a per customer interface basis ie not
at an aggregation point
12 matches
Mail list logo
