On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:16:44PM -0800, Ed Jaeger wrote: > Granted, it took some poking around to find out what was up, but once > I discovered that they had been putting port 25 blocks in place and > there was a way to undo it I just did that.
I'm not debating that they could have made it more difficult than they did. They also deserve at least *minor* kudos for only blocking outbound port 25, and not making the block bidirectional (how long would it have taken you to realize you weren't *receiving* email?). I can see where they might have a legitimate interest in slowing the spread of trojans and spam. They get a few brownie points for at least making the attempt in that regard; more ISPs should take an active interest in *constructively* protecting the unknowledgable user. Anyway, my beef is really with Charter, not SBC. Charter has the mentality that "the Internet experience" consists solely of surfing the web (downstream only, of course), and that any other use is inherently outside their terms of service. Mark's point about broken saws is quite appropos. Cars are dangerous, but we let people drive them because nothing would get done if people were only allowed to ride vendor-approved tricycles. And if you buy an SUV, you certainly don't expect them to deliver it to you with the engine "removed for your safety"...at least, not unless you just needed a quarter-ton paperweight. Anyway, I only brought it up because at first glance it seemed very similar. But, as you correctly point out, it's not the same thing at all, and Charter can continue their "Reign of Error (tm)" as the undisputed king of clueless ISPs. Sorry for the rant. Please go back to your regularly-scheduled surfing. :) -- Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/ _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
