On 9/23/07, Dustin Puryear <dustin at puryear-it.com> wrote: > In clear, technical terms: Why? > Will, Are you saying that because Cox is providing us (the public) access to the governmentally funded internet that they can't or shouldn't do what they want within their own network? Cox is a business just like any other, they are trying to make a buck and please most of their customers. If blocking port 25 outbound saves even 10-20% of spam, when there are 1-2 millions messages a day? hour? minute? then 10-20% is a rather significant number.
At any rate, if you have the money, knowledge and/or means to create your own ISP and serve customers you're welcome to do so, and I won't try to tell you how to run your network no matter how fundamentally different my view might be from yours. Would you tell Ford how to build a car because they provide you a means to use the governmentally funded highways? Well, you might, but I doubt you would get very far there either. I'm with you about freedom and choices, I agree with that, but I don't think what Cox is doing, port blocking, is a move to block freedom and choices. You can host your own server at a multitude of different locations around the world and run any service you want, just because Cox doesn't let you do this from your house isn't necessarily holding you back. This discussion should be on the political list, but at least it's a discussion, we haven't seen many of those lately. bb
