On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > [Yes I screwed this up ---ISPs do commonly block incoming 80. But
Yes, some do, but not all of them. Mine doesn't. Some cable modem ISPs in fact encourage people running servers at home, offering static IPs and extra bandwidth. One would think they would welcome inherently caching and load levelling attributes of some P2P suites, hacking them to limit themselves to the local network, and using dedicated gateways into other networks (where content would pass through, and autoamplify, limiting the expensive internetwork traffic, which requires peering arrangement for big and moolah for small network operators). > they don't block other ports, though you'll have to tweak your > firewall to allow them --although this inhibits the use of random > ports.] NAT and firewalling are the greatest inhibitors of P2P, along with dynamic periodically reassigned IPs. > But if the public can do this, so can the RIAA-bots. And in the hostile > future, they force usenet- (or whatever-) transport to remove the > encrypted lists. In the current/near future IP Malleus Maleficarum atmosphere once you can document you pulled copyrighted content from an IP, and be it only a sliver, and be it plausible deniability your ass is effectively grass. I think the legal spindoctoring can even include IP enforcement agencies running an P2P node and thus themselves being warez peddlers, transiently, would not invalidate the claim. > >The Usenet group here isn't necessary, just convenient. > > Its a fine anonymous-read, anonymous-write broadcast medium. Problem with USENT broadcast is that there's a limit on how much you can carry how widely.
