[geeks] @home has finally done it...

[David Cantrell]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 01:48:14PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> We are also going to block all inbound SMTP connections to all but
> authorised SMTP hosts ...

I'm glad you're not my ISP.  I expect to be able to do what the hell I
like with my machines, including running whatever public services I
please on them.  I should not have to seek someone elses approval before
I do that.  Of course, my contract states very specifically that I can
run whatever servers I like as long as they don't harm the service*, and
that the ISP won't filter *anything*.

> Yup, but you're not being very smart if you run any nameserver delegated
> to by any public NS record on an @Home address (@Work might be different,
> but I doubt it).  You are, literally, asking for trouble.  Don't do that.

I don't know the difference between @home and @work, but any badness will
be mitigated by having proper secondarying arrangements.  Most of my
domains have that, so it doesn't matter too much if I have DNS glitches.

> But bandwidth really isn't the primary issue -- it's just a ruse because
> it's now something the half-clued public might recognize as an issue, so
> they use it as leverage and as an expectation management tool....

Any ISP that lies to me should expect trouble.

> > They actually get pissed when I say that I have a firewall and use Linux as
> > my primary OS.
> > @home: "We don't support that sir."
> > Kurt: "I'm not asking you too - I manage just fine by myself."
> > @home: "Well we can't troubleshoot your connection without a supported OS."
> > Kurt: "Listen greenhorn - I just told you what the problem is.  Don't you
> > think you should know what the issue is, before some jerk like me calls at
> > 11:00pm and tells you what's wrong with the @home network?!"
> > @home: <click>
> 
> I know what you mean!  :-)  Been there, done that, and I'm still pissed
> at them too.

Ahhhh, I love my ISP :-)  As long as I can translate from their support
peoples' Windowsisms, they don't care what I use.  Discussion usually
goes "go to the start menu, setting ..." ... "wait, I don't use Windows,
just tell me what I need to do not how to do it" ... "Oh, OK".

> > I am sooooo pissed.  I just spent the morning reconfiguring a server at work
> > to operate as my mail server - I had to unsubscribe from the lists in the
> > meantime.  I'd just ike to take this oportunity to thank @home - for
> > NOTHING!
> 
> You brought that part of the problem on yourself.  Didn't you read the
> contract and the attached regulations?
> 
> I'll bet you many DSL providers have similar rules.  You'll either have
> to buckle down and use your home connection as a client only, or pay for
> the kind of service you really want.

Precisely.  People are shocked at how much I pay for my DSL.  They're
even more shocked by the service I get :-)  I *could* get the same
bandwidth for free through work, but I won't do it.  I won't get the
level of service I require.  That, and I religiously seperate personal
and work stuff.

* - I thought it would be a good idea to warn them about the anonymising
mail relay I'm putting together.  They shat themselves until I explained
exactly how I would make it spammer-proof.  It'll also be cult-proof, so
won't suffer the fate of anon.penet.fi, but that's a seperate issue :-)
I am currently awaiting a delivery of tuits.

-- 
David Cantrell | david at cantrell.org.uk | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

   Educating this luser would be something to frustrate even the
   unflappable Yoda and make him jam a lightsaber up his arse
   while screaming "praise evil, the Dark Side is your friend!".
                              -- Derek Balling, in the Monastery