Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fake IMAP -> Real IMAP
Grant wrote: I've been waiting and waiting and waiting forever for DSL to come to my neighborhood just so that I can switch to a decent provider and rid myself of this nonsense. Don't assume DSL will be better. They often block ports too (as you said, it's well within their service agreement to do so, but I still think it sucks). At least 'round here you have far more ISP choices with DSL. With cable all you get is a choice between 2-3 of the national "send us your money and shut up" ISPs. With DSL you can pick from at least a dozen and a couple of them are top notch local firms run by geeks for geeks. Where is that, New York City? Sounds like the promised land. - Grant Since DSL is supposed to be coming here soon, I'd like to know what is a good one myself. AT&T is the one running the cable but do I have other choices? Is AT&T OK for a home setup? Anything has to beat this stinking dial-up I have right now tho. Thanks Dale :-) :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fake IMAP -> Real IMAP
> >> I've been waiting and waiting and waiting forever for DSL to > >> come to my neighborhood just so that I can switch to a decent > >> provider and rid myself of this nonsense. > > > > Don't assume DSL will be better. They often block ports too > > (as you said, it's well within their service agreement to do > > so, but I still think it sucks). > > At least 'round here you have far more ISP choices with DSL. > With cable all you get is a choice between 2-3 of the national > "send us your money and shut up" ISPs. With DSL you can pick > from at least a dozen and a couple of them are top notch local > firms run by geeks for geeks. Where is that, New York City? Sounds like the promised land. - Grant -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Fake IMAP -> Real IMAP
On 2008-02-12, Dan Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've been waiting and waiting and waiting forever for DSL to >> come to my neighborhood just so that I can switch to a decent >> provider and rid myself of this nonsense. > > Don't assume DSL will be better. They often block ports too > (as you said, it's well within their service agreement to do > so, but I still think it sucks). At least 'round here you have far more ISP choices with DSL. With cable all you get is a choice between 2-3 of the national "send us your money and shut up" ISPs. With DSL you can pick from at least a dozen and a couple of them are top notch local firms run by geeks for geeks. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... I don't like at FRANK SINATRA or his visi.comCHILDREN. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Fake IMAP -> Real IMAP
On 2008-02-11, Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm thinking I may not have explained this properly. My local >>> ISP is Cox and I get the above list of filtered ports when >>> port scanning my remote machine which is hosted halfway across >>> the country. Cox can't prevent me from scanning the SMTP port >>> on my remote machine right? My host must be filtering the >>> ports? >> >> It's fairly standard practice on large mostly residential user >> ISPs to filter outgoing port 25 traffic to any IP, but the >> local SMTP servers. This stops a fair amount of spam, but can >> make troubleshooting complicated. > > Crazy, I didn't think they filtered outgoing ports. Some do. I try not to deal with ISPs that do that. So far, so good. > This doesn't mean I need an MX host other than my remote > server right? Right. The MX is fine. You just need an ISP that doesn't suck or a way around an ISP that does. > It's not like the server connects via residential Cox, it's a > hosted system. I should be able to use SMTP from my laptop if > I set up openvpn right? Yup. I told you there were going to be plenty of other uses for a VPN besides printing. :) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want the presidency at so bad I can already taste visi.comthe hors d'oeuvres. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
