<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
David,<br>
<br>
David Hummel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20050728162507.GA9744@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:09:27PM -0400, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bill@horne.net">bill@horne.net</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The person I spoke with denied there is any policy to block port 25
inbound (cloud -> end user) but he said they block port 25 going
outbound (user -> cloud) if they suspect spamming or a zombie machine.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
"Suspect" is not good enough. We should demand that they establish
proof of a spam relay or zombified machine before implementing a block.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I can also appreciate the point of view of the hound: assembling
evidence, checking it, and "proving" that there's a problem requires
too much manual effort. An automated system is a reasonable compromise,
but I think we can convince them to tweak the rules.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20050728162507.GA9744@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Conclusion: I think Comcast has some automated system that blocks port 25
based on criteria they don't want to reveal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If they are going to block ports, which restricts the bandwidth we are
paying for, the least they can do is layout the criteria so we can avoid
being blocked.
Does it actually say anywhere in our contract that ports can be blocked
at their discretion?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
>From <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp:">http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp:</a><br>
<br>
<cite>Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy
(the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new
version of this document on the Comcast Web site at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.comcast.net">http://www.comcast.net</a> (or any successor URL(s)). All revised copies of
the Policy are effective immediately upon posting. Accordingly,
customers and users of the Comcast High-Speed Internet Service should
regularly visit our web site and review this Policy to ensure that
their activities conform to the most recent version.<b> In the event of
a conflict between any subscriber or customer agreement and this
Policy, the terms of this Policy will govern. </b>(emphasis added) ...<br>
<br>
Prohibited Uses and Activities<br>
<br>
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service,
Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to: ...<br>
<br>
xiv. Run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide
network content or any other services to anyone outside of your
Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public
services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers
include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and
proxy services and servers;<br>
<br>
</cite>Now, of course, we all know that already, and we also know that
the rule has been more honored in the breach than the observance, but
that lack of enforcement can be interpreted many ways: I choose to
think that Comcast will cut us some slack if we demonstrate a
responsible attitude and reasonably articulate our concerns. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid20050728162507.GA9744@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you're a Comcast subscriber, and port 25 is blocked at your machine,
please send me an email giving your name and address. I'll prepare
a case for Comcast to exempt the "Linux" class of machine from the
blocks.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks, that would be great!
</pre>
</blockquote>
If your access to port 25 is blocked, please send me a separate email
(I'll cc: the discuss list and ask everyone in this boat to do
likewise), addressed to <a href="mailto:port25@billhorne.homelinux.org">port25@billhorne.homelinux.org</a>
with the following:<br>
<br>
Name<br>
Address<br>
Reason you feel port 25 should be available to you<br>
Steps you'll take to prevent unauthorized use<br>
Why you're not a "commercial" account and shouldn't be charged a
commercial fee<br>
<br>
The key, IMHO, is to prepare a well-documented, positive presentation
that will convince Comcast they're in danger of loosing customers to
Verizon or Speakeasy: <br>
1. In Verizon's case, we can say that if we're forced to use dynamic
dns and other workarounds, we'll take the discounted price.<br>
2. Speakeasy's policies and reputation speak for themselves, and
they're very close to Comcast's price even assuming no wireless resale
discouts.<br>
<br>
I will, of course, send a copy to the various tech reporters in print
(Hiawatha Bray at the Globe, whomever at the Herald) and to a couple of
TV reporters I know: on a slow summer newsday, you never know...<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
</body>
</html>