[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? ( from IP )
[ I really don't want to start another round of tit-for-tat arguments regarding the portion of the message text below that we've discussed earlier. But toward the end of this message a new topic is broached that I don't believe we've talked about directly on this list yet. That is, ISP bouncing of *outgoing* e-mail based on the content -- in this case forbidden URLs as determined by a third party. Imagine if your obviously steamed-open letter came back from the postal service with this insert: We opened your envelope to make sure that your letter was acceptable, and we discovered that according to our third-party rating service you mentioned some forbidden topics (we won't list them here, you'll need to guess!). So, we're returning your letter to you undelivered. Have a nice day! -- U.S.P.S. I suspect that most people receiving their letter back in such condition would be outraged. Should it be any different for legal, non-spam e-mail, being sent through ISP servers since most subscribers aren't permitted to run their own servers? Is declaring outgoing e-mail to be spam based simply on the presence of particular URLs acceptable? Silly? Sloppy? Actionable? -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ] On Friday 29 February 2008 01:52, Lauren Weinstein wrote: The following is my personal opinion, not a statement on behalf of NNSquad. At the risk of sounding a bit like Bob Frankston, I don't accept the premise that ISPs have any intrinsic right to monitor my applications and micromanage my use of the Internet, beyond flow control as necessary to keep their networks healthy. Even the fact that a user is choosing to run application A or application B can be viewed as an element of content that should be none of the ISPs' business. Agreed! It has always been my position that what I'm buying is a chunk of connectivity, at a certain level, and that beyond that what's going through the wires is none of their business. Unfortunately my experience has been to the contrary, with one provider's handling of virus and spam issues being so heavy-handed that they interfered with legitimate communications, and if I hadn't been talking to the same person by way of fidonet (!) at that time I'd never have known. The provider's suggestion that blacklisting a whole cable company in BC was reasonable didn't sound so to me, nor did their solution to the party to hit a web site to remove the block work, either. Even if users choose to run 24/7 VPNs, with all applications layered within those encrypted channels, ISPs' main concerns should be that those subscribers' bandwidth usage stays within their contractual limits and that their overall throughput is managed to the extent necessary to avoid unfair impacts on other subscribers or the network itself. This implies that any subscriber should be able to run servers if they wish. If a subscriber were determined to be engaging in illegal activities or actions that were disrupting other users (e.g. spam), they would be subject to appropriate actions, of course, but it's inappropriate to treat subscribers as if they were untrustworthy crooks on an a priori basis. Indeed. In the past few days I received an email from Verizon about them changing their TOS, which strangely enough didn't link to the new one. A quick perusal of it after some digging didn't show much different than what I'd remembered from the old one, but that no servers clause is still in there. They don't, anywhere that I noticed, define how they mean that term, and if it turns out to be something that runs without my intervention then I'm probably in trouble. Disrupting other users by this definition doesn't include the simple running of protocols that make heavy use of subscribed circuits. If ISPs have a problem with user throughput, they should be able to throttle the speed (not block!) as necessary. Just so. But such throttling rules should be spelled out clearly, so that when a person pays for a circuit of a specific advertised up to this speed, they have some clue as to what they're actually paying for. Yes. This all doesn't address the problem of how to avoid ISPs managing bandwidth in ways that favor their own entertainment and related delivery systems over outside services, but that's another story. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator I would also like suggestions as to how I might deal with providers that see fit to mess with things based on _content_. For example, I have an ongoing correspondence right now which had 20 or so posts sittiiing in my sent-mail folder, and Verizon, for some reason, decided that it didn't like one of them: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Today 05:36:19 am This report
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 10:41 AM 3/2/2008, Seth Johnson wrote: Despite the fact that Vint works for them. I'd like to see someone explain how differentiation based on types of applications would not end net neutrality. I will explain this for you, and I will try to put it very simply. Network Neutrality simply means that carriers do not discriminate against content providers with which they compete. It does not mean that they cannot manage their networks; throttle or block abusive behavior, protocols, or software; prioritize protocols which need near-isochronous bandwidth or are interactive; charge different rates for different tiers of service; cache content; or provide informative messages to their customers through their browsers as they surf. Those who have sought to include the above restrictions in the definition of Network Neutrality are, IMHO, trying to exploit the bandwagon for their own purposes -- ideological or financial. Vuze, Inc., for example, has no high minded principles; it simply wants to avoid paying for the bandwidth it uses. --Brett Glass [ Or to be more precise, that is the personal definition of Network Neutrality promulgated by Mr. Brett Glass. In the broader universe, the term Network Neutrality currently has various other meanings and implications as well for many persons involved in these issues, and I for one would never suggest that my personal definition need be accepted by everyone else. In fact, Brett is correct to the extent that when the term first came into widespread use (around the time of the Brand X case) carrier discrimination was the dominant issue. Since then, the term has been widened in many circles to include a much broader range of issues, and just as various other terms morph over the years, many observers would suggest that the term network neutrality has similarly changed to encompass much more than it did initially. But we should really be spending our time dealing with specific issues, and not worrying so much about the names on the pigeonholes. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? ( from IP )
At 02:53 PM 3/2/2008, Roy J. Tellason wrote: They're running something that looks at the content of my emails and bounces it if it doesn't like _some URLs_ that I have in it? WTF? This is quite common, actually. RHSBLs are generally very good ways of detecting spam zombies -- better than, for example, blacklists that rely only on IP addresses. The rate of false positives is extremely low. I'm glad to see that Verizon is being proactive about spam being sent from their networks. They have, for years, been among the worst offenders -- always at the top of our list of spam sources. The occasional false positive is well worth it compared to the alternative. If you don't like it, of course, you can always get a business account on which the running of a server is permitted -- or use a third party mail service. --Brett Glass P.S. -- I'd be willing to be that it was the .com URL that got your message blocked. Probably a porn site that's been advertised in spam.
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? ( from IP )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Verizon, for some reason, decided that it didn't like one of them You're misreading the error message: Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: (Snipped for privacy) Reason: SMTP transmission failure has occurred Diagnostic code: smtp;552 5.2.0 Remote MTA 206.46.252.46: An URL contained in this message is blacklisted by SURBL. See http://www.surbl.org Remote system: (Snipped) (impinc04.yourhostingaccount.com NO UCE ESMTP server ready ) That error, and the associated message, was generated by the remote system, not Verizon. Mail servers use a number of techniques to detect incoming spam. I know Barracuda Systems can scan message bodies for blacklisted URLs, because I know the person who implemented it for them. Don't complain to Verizon. Complain to the person who you were trying to send the message to. john- [ John is correct. On closer inspection, the reject is from the remote MTA, not the local MTA (Verizon), so it falls into the more ordinary category of remote MTA spam filtering (however perhaps over-aggressive in this case). This appears to be: impinc04.yourhostingaccount.com, mapping from: GTE.net LLC GTEN-206-46 (NET-206-46-0-0-1) 206.46.0.0 - 206.46.255.255 CTN VIO CTN-ENTERPRISE-NETWORKS (NET-206-46-224-0-1) 206.46.224.0 - 206.46.255.255 While the error message from the remote MTA tells you how to look at the SURBL blacklist, it doesn't seem to provide any routine means to contact the MTA admin (good luck with postmaster these days) to deal with the block. For point of reference I've always considered it very bad form to give an MTA suspected spam reject without providing exception contact info. Here's the URL and workarounds my MTAs provide whenever they reject suspected spam: http://www.vortex.com/mailblock.html . I wish more sites provided something like this. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 11:41 PM 2/29/2008, Robb Topolski wrote: Above is the link of an FCC filing from Google saying that the FCC should prevent ISPs from most blocking or prioritizing, and that even though they already pay a hefty fee for network access (page 24), that P2P applications like Skype (page 36) are perfectly fine with them. I've read Google's filing, and they do not at all say what you claim. In fact, Google states at the outset that It should go without saying that Google is a confirmed believer in the free market. Unlike some who publicly tout the virtues of open markets while endeavoring behind the scenes to keep them closed, Google genuinely trusts that the marketplace will provide consumers, users, and providers alike with maximum benefits. In short, Google prefers to let the marketplace sort things out. What Google is concerned about is that providers such as SBC will try to charge Google more to reach its customers, even though it's already paying for its backbone bandwidth. It explicitly does NOT object to throttling of P2P by ISPs. It says: Some forms of packet prioritization constitute reasonable business practices, because they utilize objective criteria, and/or do not merely leverage unilateral control over last-mile connectivity. These practices include differentiating based on the type of applications and/or the quantity of bandwidth purchased by the consumer. Other forms amount to unreasonable discrimination; these include differentiation based on the ownership or affiliation of the content (who), or the source or destination of the content (the where). As for Skype: If you actually read Google's comment at Page 36, you'll see that P2P is never mentioned and certainly never branded as OK. What Google is concerned about, again, is blocking or hindrance of content or services by providers that offer similar ones. --Brett Glass
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 12:37 PM 3/1/2008, Kee Hinckley wrote: On Mar 1, 2008, at 12:38 AM, Brett Glass wrote: Secondly, Google is not in the business of harassing or antagonizing ISPs and would be ill advised to do so. ISPs are their customers and their way of reaching the rest of the world. Google -- which wants to avoid becoming an ISP itself -- needs them as allies. That's a very odd statement. If Google is truly a customer, then presumably you can terminate your contract with them. How long would an ISP survive that didn't allow access to Google? I don't think you could possibly have understood what I said more completely, so I will try again. ISPs are Google's customers. We advertise there. While we have noticed some problems with what appears to be click fraud, in general we have a fine relationship with them. Why would we want to terminate it? And why on Earth would we not allow access to Google? Your customers are end-users. The services you provide are determined by what your end-users want. Of course. It's for our customers' sake that we do what we do -- including P2P mitigation. I know that ISPs would very much like to make companies like Google their customers. Now, what you are saying is getting even stranger -- or maybe there is a greater misunderstanding than I thought. Google does not happen to be one of our customers (though we do develop technology that they might find useful). But what does that have to do with the present discussion? [SNIP] Also, you responded to that post by talking about P2P. But what Barry Gold said was: Their pages are copyright (at least, the logos and layout are, and I suspect a compilation copyright would apply to the information). Read up on derivative works. Unless I screwed up on my threading, he's talking about modifying web pages and adding things to them. Which is not the same thing we're talking about. We're talking about displaying an informative message (not an ad; we don't spam our users) at the top of the browser window, and the page that the user requested -- unaltered -- below. --Brett Glass
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
Brett: I certainly don't advocate breaking contracts in force between a willing vendor and customer. I was speaking in very broad terms about firewall behavior; generally everyone agrees that spam and botnet attacks are bad and we should try to block them. I also respect your right and responsibility to protect your network from abuse, and to protect your customers from each other, but I guess the big debate on this list is over what constitutes abuse versus reasonable and allowable use of bandwidth, or what constitutes interference versus reasonable and allowable network management and protection. I am not familiar with your terms of use, nor am I a lawyer so I won't debate whether p2p inherently violates them, or whether you have the right under those terms to block or throttle packets based on the use of particular applications. If your customers signed that agreement, and the terms forbid what they are trying to do, and permit what you are trying to do, then they have to live with it. Perhaps I'll read my ISPs terms of use... I'm glad to see both sides of the debate are allowed to flower here. As Sy Syms says an educated consumer is our best customer (r) (sorry - if you are not in his market area see http://www.syms.com/) so we'd all be better off (vendors and customers) if everyone meant what they said and said what they meant, and customers read and understood the EULA and made their free-market decisions. Ed J. Brett Glass wrote: [A few responses to messages on the list, concatenated for brevity. -BG] snip Ed J. writes: There should always be a very good reason, mutually acceptable to the network operator and its customers, for any blocking. How about that it was agreed to by contract and therefore was mutually accepted by both parties at the get-go? snip --Brett Glass
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 03:09 PM 2/29/2008, Barry Gold wrote: Hah! There you go again with a loaded term. Blocking isn't mitigation, it's disruption. Blocking is the strongest and most complete form of mitigation. Some folks, like Comcast, use a much lighter touch, but the value of treading so lightly is questionable. We, as an ISP in a rural college town, find that we have to push back much harder. P2P would take down our network if we let it. I notice you ignored that part of my message when you chose what to reply to. I'd be pretty tedious if I always replied to everything that was said. I'm doing an awful lot of replying right now, alas, because many of my colleagues on this list who agree with me are choosing to lurk. (I really hope that they'll come out of the shadows and post.) Not that it matters. You (collectively) just going to make things worse for yourselves. The more you dig into user's bitstreams, the more people will switch to IPSec, https, and other encrypted schemes. The only motivation for doing this would be that one is violating his agreement with his ISP and wants to conceal it. ISPs will also be able to infer what is being done by the quantity of the traffic and the behavior of the node. And they'll throttle and block it for the sake of their honest customers, who -- thankfully -- are the majority. The really bad thing about this, from my POV, is that you, the little guy, are caught in the middle. YOu can try to be a good guy about P2P and everything else, We are. We're being a good guy by mitigating P2P (sorry if you don't like the term, but since it's the scourge of our network and a violation of our TOS we think it's appropriate) so that our honest customers can get good service. but what's really going to affect things are the behaviors of Comcast, Time Warner, and a couple of other big players. And kangaroo courts, such as the one that was held in Boston. What an embarrassing, one-sided circus! If they decide to start adding advertisements to people's webpages, everything will go to https because Google doesn't want other people putting ads on (or above) their webpages, Whether those ads appear is between the ISP and the customer. It's none of Google's business. and neither does any other major commercial site. And if they persist in resetting P2P sessions, everything will go to IPsec. No. The miscreants will go to IPSec and thus will become easier to identify. It's sort of like watching the end of a tragedy, everything just falls down and you can see it coming but you can't do anything about it. I'm doing plenty about it. I'm going to speak out -- for the sake of my livelihood and for the sake of my customers. Just as I'm doing here. --Brett Glass
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
Thirdly, Google would lose a big advantage if ISPs were required to allow P2P. Right now, Vuze, Inc. is trying to compete with YouTube without buying the sort of pipes that Google can afford. It's doing this by stealing the bandwidth from users' ISPs. If ISPs are required to allow this theft, Google loses its edge. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6519529458 Above is the link of an FCC filing from Google saying that the FCC should prevent ISPs from most blocking or prioritizing, and that even though they already pay a hefty fee for network access (page 24), that P2P applications like Skype (page 36) are perfectly fine with them.
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
The FCC should establish the rules necessary to take on the enforcement role WRT adherence to established Internet Standards as defined by qualified and recognized standards-setting bodies such as the IETF. While these standards do exist and have existed for a long time, these bodies have no enforcement powers. The rules were enforced through mutual agreement, and the process is better reflective of an Internet built upon human-to-human handshake than it is reflective of a corporate service provider agreement. As a result, the only stick to our carrot-and-stick system is trying to convince an upstream provider or peer to discontinue peering with someone who is nefariously violating the standards. This is not unlike how the FCC handles matters involving authoritative but non-enforcement bodies in the areas of International Frequency Allocation (WRT mode, power, content), Amateur Radio Repeater and Packet coordination, and broadcast standards and practices. The FCC specifically should avoid taking on the role of setting such standards, in that they would be unique and limiting only to the United States. Except, however, the FCC may be asked to apply imperfectly-matched standards to resolve complaints which would set precedent. For example, the FCC may need to balance desires to provide -some- low-bandwidth Internet Services by radio to currently unserved areas, even if it means allowing that ISP to use technology limiting or prohibiting high-bandwidth applications over such networks. As in the current case, when a question of reasonableness comes up, the FCC should weigh the claim against both the written standards and its own common judgment, perhaps after consultation with various experts willing to testify. This is not unlike the way it acts in questions of broadcast decency. The above sounds like less of a technical solution than you might have liked as a technologist, but I believe it is the best direction for the FCC to take. Robb Topolski -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nnsquad- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:53 AM To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ NNSquad ] FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP) From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IP] the FCC and Comcast - a query from your editor Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:35:28 -0500 I have heard endless suggestions that the FCC stop what many consider improper network management practices by Comcast .. As a former Chief Technologist of the FCC I have some understanding of the level of technical competence and deapth at the FCC and some understanding of the process they and the companies they regulate go through to enforce regulations -- long and painful and often producing the opposite results intended. So lets get down to details. What exactly do you want to FCC to do about network management. Details -- not just enforce NN -- that is a motherhood statement. Details and then maybe the conversation can get meaningful. --- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 07:35 AM 2/27/2008, David Farber wrote: So lets get down to details. What exactly do you want to FCC to do about network management. Details -- not just enforce NN -- that is a motherhood statement. Details and then maybe the conversation can get meaningful. I agree. Let me start by responding to some remarks in Brad Templeton's posting to IP, since these responses lay the groundwork for a workable solution. I'll follow with seven specific suggestions. Brad writes: In this case, with BitTorrent, users trade their spare upstream bandwidth -- which in many cases, such as the typical DSL ISP is otherwise going unused and wasted -- This is fundamentally incorrect, and it's important to understand this. All bandwidth, and especially upstream bandwidth, is a scarce and precious commodity.(This is especially true for ISPs, such as mine, which buy economical asymmetrical pipes to support fast Web browsing. Without them, many ISPs' balance sheets would go negative.) We need absolutely every shred of bandwidth we buy, because at the prices we pay we can't afford to waste it. to other users in exchange for their upstream bandwidth in return. (Or, in a pay it forward/golden rule situation, they sometimes just do it out of philanthropy or in the hope of promoting a system where they will be rewarded later.) Actually, as Brad should be well aware, with BitTorrent the contribution of bandwidth isn't voluntary; it is compulsory. And just as sharing the copyrighted materials which constitute all but a vanishingly small percentage of P2P traffic is not really sharing, so too P2P is not sharing one's own bandwidth but taking bandwidth from the ISP in violation of its terms of service. It is commonly incorrectly stated that this is done to benefit the 3rd party (such as ubuntu.com) but the trade is really mostly among the users. The seed gets no means to reward tit for tat. This is likewise incorrect, particularly in the case of Vuze, Inc. -- the most strident of the commercial P2P companies in the current debate. Vuze's petition to the FCC is, by its own admission, motivated by its selfish economic interests. Unlike YouTube, it doesn't want to pay for the upstream bandwidth that's needed to deliver its content to customers. BitTorrent's testimony at the hearing was likewise self-serving. What is often missed is the question really comes out of this concept of the user having spare upstream bandwidth. Most ISPs sell a flat rate, upstream package and as such the bandwidth is sold to the customer and is theirs to use to further their usage of the internet. In the case of DSL, the upstream is truly otherwise unused and is lost forever if not used. Not true. While the bandwidth of an individual user's telephone line may be idle, the provider's upstream bandwidth is being used by many such upstream connections and is, if the ISP is optimizing its network properly, close to full utilization given normal usage that conforms to its terms of service. With DOCSIS and wireless ISPs this is not as true. Actually, wireless ISPs are in a much better position than cable providers in this regard for two reasons. Our (mostly IEEE standard) wireless is flexible in that it can shift bandwidth from downstream to upstream as needed and only puts 50 customers on an access point, not 500. New access points are also less expensive for us than new distribution points are for the cable guys. However, the cable guys have one insurmountable advantage over us: they can bundle and cross-subsidize. We only do Internet, so if mandatory passage of P2P traffic is imposed by regulation, it would raise the cost of providing adequate service above our retail prices. We'd be out of business in a hurry unless we increased our rates somewhere between 50% and 100% (depending upon what the rules said). Some ISPs want to claim you don't really have any spare bandwidth to trade, that they didn't really sell it to you, that it is theirs, not yours, in spite of what they advertise. We never advertise any such thing. In fact, we are very explicit. Again, the analogy of an all-you-can-eat buffet is a good one. Customers do not own all of the food on the buffet; they only own what they, individually, can put in their own stomachs during the meal. Everyone who eats must pay to do so. You can only eat what's on the buffet; you can't raid the pantry. And there are no doggie bags and no smuggling food out to third parties. Not even if those third parties are not-for-profit. If so, there have been calls for them to be clear in their advertising about these limits. The cable companies' ads do point out many of these limitations, though they often do it at the bottom in the fine print. Our ISP is more explicit; we tell every user, and state very clearly in our terms of service, what we restrict. And, hence, my suggestions with regard to what (if anything) the FCC should do with
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
At 10:48 PM 2/28/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote: Brett Glass says: Sixth, there should be no obfuscation of P2P. B! Sorry, no can do, at least if we're talking about some sort of enforced ban. I'm personally not a user of P2P currently, but I reserve the right to encrypt any or all of my Internet traffic for security and privacy purposes as I see fit, and most security consultants worth their salt recommend encrypting as much as possible, given the nature of the Internet today. Encrypt the content if you will, but if you try to obfuscate the fact that you are DOING P2P, in violation of a contract you made with your ISP, you are being dishonest. And if you announce from the start your intent to be dishonest, then there can never be a truce, much less a mutually beneficial agreement. And you will be exactly the kind of customer whom we will be glad to send packing. We like doing business honestly, with honest people. --Brett Glass
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
The following is my personal opinion, not a statement on behalf of NNSquad. At the risk of sounding a bit like Bob Frankston, I don't accept the premise that ISPs have any intrinsic right to monitor my applications and micromanage my use of the Internet, beyond flow control as necessary to keep their networks healthy. Even the fact that a user is choosing to run application A or application B can be viewed as an element of content that should be none of the ISPs' business. Even if users choose to run 24/7 VPNs, with all applications layered within those encrypted channels, ISPs' main concerns should be that those subscribers' bandwidth usage stays within their contractual limits and that their overall throughput is managed to the extent necessary to avoid unfair impacts on other subscribers or the network itself. This implies that any subscriber should be able to run servers if they wish. If a subscriber were determined to be engaging in illegal activities or actions that were disrupting other users (e.g. spam), they would be subject to appropriate actions, of course, but it's inappropriate to treat subscribers as if they were untrustworthy crooks on an a priori basis. Disrupting other users by this definition doesn't include the simple running of protocols that make heavy use of subscribed circuits. If ISPs have a problem with user throughput, they should be able to throttle the speed (not block!) as necessary. But such throttling rules should be spelled out clearly, so that when a person pays for a circuit of a specific advertised up to this speed, they have some clue as to what they're actually paying for. This all doesn't address the problem of how to avoid ISPs managing bandwidth in ways that favor their own entertainment and related delivery systems over outside services, but that's another story. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - At 10:48 PM 2/28/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote: Brett Glass says: Sixth, there should be no obfuscation of P2P. B! Sorry, no can do, at least if we're talking about some sort of enforced ban. I'm personally not a user of P2P currently, but I reserve the right to encrypt any or all of my Internet traffic for security and privacy purposes as I see fit, and most security consultants worth their salt recommend encrypting as much as possible, given the nature of the Internet today. Encrypt the content if you will, but if you try to obfuscate the fact that you are DOING P2P, in violation of a contract you made with your ISP, you are being dishonest. And if you announce from the start your intent to be dishonest, then there can never be a truce, much less a mutually beneficial agreement. And you will be exactly the kind of customer whom we will be glad to send packing. We like doing business honestly, with honest people. --Brett Glass
