Curtis Sloan wrote:
My definition of "service" is defined as busy, anonymous public or organized access (not necessarily "business" or "corporate"). For example, I wouldn't feel bad about running a game server on weekends, but running a DS 24/7 would break the spirit of the law. Same would go for an e-mail server (for example) -- I would feel okay forwarding my own DNS domain account and running POP3/IMAP, but hosting a bunch of busy mailboxes would break the spirit of the thing.
Is this how Shaw sees things too?
Curtis
-----Original Message----- From: todd almond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 14, 2003 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (clug-talk) isp blocking ports
If it is suspected that someone with a residential or SOHO account (no servers allowed) is running a service then a port scan will be done. Usually high bandwidth usage is a clue.
Curtis Sloan wrote:
Do they also do the odd port scan, or only if there is suspicious bandwidth usage?
Curtis
-----Original Message----- From: todd almond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 13, 2003 10:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (clug-talk) isp blocking ports
Nope, no port blocking. Except for a brief period when the blaster worm was out, port 135 was shut-off. (I'm a TSR there...)
Jon Copeland wrote:
does anyone know if shaw blocks, among other things, port 80? and if they are is there a way around this? im looking at hosting a LOW TRAFFIC picture gallery for my family around the world and i'd like to accomplish this using my existing infrastructure and not incur any additional costs.
jon
