Actually, I would look for this to be more the norm than the exception in the future, as AT&T, under the direction of Ed Whitacre, former head of SBC Illinois, formerly Ameritech Illinois, formerly Illinois Bell, and now head of the "new" AT&T, completes the reconstruction of the Bell System.
AT&T already owns Yahoo and they are trying to forcibly buy Google. Fortunately, the Justice Department is taking a good look at the purchase of Google by AT&T, but Microsoft is also trying to purchase Google - but that's another story. IF Whitacre completes the purchase of all of the former Baby Bells (only Verizon and Qwest remain independent, all of the others are once again part of AT&T), he will then try to go after the independent telecom providers and they, AT&T, have already announced plans (via internal memos) to attempt to control the content of people's browsers by directing them to AT&T provided / hosted content FIRST. This will most than likely be done via re-directs and port closings. AT&T may also provide slower access to non-AT&T provided content as well. The Eisenhower administration, during the 1950s, realized the folly of having a single source of telecommunications providers. Now is it only being re-proven as the Internet, developed by the Department of Defense to be a collection of private networks, interconnected via multiple backbones, and atomic bomb proof is increasingly attacked for both content and content source. Judge Green completed the breakup of AT&T in February of 1982, but, unfortunately, is not around to maintain his vigilant voice of reason in today's modern world of telecommunications and no one else has picked up the ball with the same diligence, preferring to allow both the current administration and FCC prefer to both undo the work started by the Eisenhower Administration and concluded by Judge Green, and to trample the telecommunications and economic rights of those who are directly affected by the profiteering of Whitacre. In the long run, both governments and private companies want to figure out how to control what we read and do online. What we, as providers and businesses must do, it to maintain a constant vigilance on this situation and make certain that the Internet remains a disparate, interconnected group of private networks that never falls under the control of a single company or government. The Internet was designed to be a free and open interconnection of networks, not under any one person, company or government's control, and we must work diligently to maintain that initial vision. Blocking ports is only the beginning, and, if left unchecked, will morph into the next attack on the Internet; the Constitution; and the Bill of Rights, and the Internet as we now know it will become just another commodity and profit margin on the books of AT&T. Bruce Barnes ChicagoNetTech Chicago IL When I retire to my log cabin in the mountains of Wyoming, I will no longer have a credit card, phone, cell phone, internet connection, computer, water service, natural gas or electricity provided by corporations. I am planning to go completely off-grid. Give me cash, paper mail, a well, solar panels, a generator and several fire places, and I'll live out the remaining days of my life without the chaos that modern living has wrought upon all of our lives! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:52 To: Stephen Guluk Subject: Re[2]: AW: AW: [IMail Forum] Possible to get rid of 8383? > Hoping to reopen this conversation but add the caveat of a firewall > "IS" the problem for one of my clients. They are given an internet > connection from their parent company and now the parent company > wants to mess with any subsidiaries that are trying to go it alone. > So one of their tactics is to block the selection of ports in the > URL string. They're spending their time blocking alternate HTTP ports, but for purely arbitrary reasons, rather than something touching on security? Well, whatever.... > Is there an IIS method that allows going to a basic URL then doing > the redirect to the port 8383 outside the confines and parameters of > a firewall? IIS, no. But you can run a reverse proxy (Apache mod_proxy, Squid reverse proxy, FastStream). Or you could add an additional IP, ensure you don't bind it in IIS, and run a cheapo port redirector on that IP from 80->8383. --Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release / Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/downloa d/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/re lease/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
