Most ISP's have some form of blocking going on. ATT, Mindspring,
Earthlink, Prodigy, AOL, and many others all block port 25 traffic, other
than to their own SMTP server. AOL actually redirects ALL port 25 requests
to THEIR SMTP server. Many ISP's put caps on NNTP traffic. I have a 500K
cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [FW1]
@Home ban of VPN's
to
your office network, though I don't see any distinction being made.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 3:22 AM
To: Valerie Leveille
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
BT are doing a similar
call for tech support because they can't get their daily fix
of p0rn.
-Original Message-
From: Jarmoc, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:08 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Valerie Leveille
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
-Original Message-
From: Jarmoc, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:08 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Valerie Leveille
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
So far, comcast@home is the only one implementing this rule. ATT, Excite,
etc
After issuing an email complaint, I got this back...
Dear Patti,
Thank you for your message.
It is not the intent of this text to prohibit customers from
establishing a connection for residential purposes. Activities such as
online banking, online trading and making purchases online
Two words. Cash and Grab. I'd call them up (if they've banned VPNs in your area) and
rant about them changing their policy AFTER signing an agreement. You'll likely obtain
immunity. Then make sure you tell them your future connections will be DSL to avoid
this kind of bad faith contractual
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc:
Naveen Malhotra/New York/ACMC)
Subject: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
As long as they don't start port blocking (especially on 264)
then it should
be OK for Check Point Securemote at least.
Scott J. Friedman
Senior Systems Administrator
Micros
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
After issuing an email complaint, I got this back...
Dear Patti,
Thank you for your message.
It is not the intent of this text to prohibit customers from
I don't believe you, but is this on their web page or did you
receive this in an e-mail?
-Original Message-
From: Misha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FW1] @Home "ban" of VPN's
Any reaction to the below "ban" of VP
Fingerprint: A20B 135D 0920 074F C7FE D72D 88A7 2521 5138 DFC2
==
-Original Message-
From: Valerie Leveille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FW1] @Home ban
Title: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
I read the email from them this morning. I fully plan on either getting this ridiculous stipulation removed or changing services. It is absolutely absurd for them to tell me that because I check my work email from home that I need to pay 5 times more for my
oney... It looks to me like we are reading an end-user
agreement that would be for personal use only and whenever someone does
something, consider the motivating factor being "money".
- Original Message -
From: Valerie Leveille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
-Original Message-
From: Valerie Leveille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 12:55 PM
[...]
How many people are affected by this? If we cause enough
grief will they
take it out of their agreement.
[...]
Title: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
I contacted @Home this afternoon--I had been scheduled for installation this week. Needless to say, I cancelled my order.
Bottom line is that they DO intend to implement a policy of banning VPN traffic over their network for @Home subscribers. How
) |
| Subject: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's|
|
I contacted @Home this afternoon--I had been scheduled for installation this
week. Needless
: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's |
-|
Well they share the same class A ips.
Here is a search for 24.0.0.0 from arin.
@Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME24.0.0.0 -
24.23.255.255
@Home
]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
From what I have read on this list and elsewhere, the VPN ban is not an
@home
thing but a COMCAST@home thing.. an ARIN search for Comcast resulted in a
long
list none of which included any part
Cunninghame@Hyperion, |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| cc:|
| Subject: RE: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: [FW1] @Home ban of VPN's
From what I have read on this list and elsewhere, the VPN ban is not an
@home
thing but a COMCAST@home thing.. an ARIN search
I got that also.. my securemote still works, however!
-Original Message-
From: Misha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FW1] @Home "ban" of VPN's
Any reaction to the below "ban" of VPN's in the
I was a little upset to receive this. I already sent back my
argumentative reply and hope that others are doing the same. Has
anyone experienced similar issues with any DSL providers? We are
just starting to roll out our VPN and I was advising people on cable
modem service, but...
(We'll
22 matches
Mail list logo
