[NCLUG] more than 7 email ids with @Home?

[Michael Dwyer]

> Thanks for the info.  Someone pointed out a possible problem with the
> inclusiveness of the user agreement, however, with regards to "no
> servers."  Is my PC a mail "server" when it sends out an email?  If
> so, then isn't everyone who sends email out running a mail server?
> Please let me know if this is a correct assumption.

I would assume a server is a thing that answers to a request from a client
sent to a specific port.  So sending mail isn't really a service, unless it
is done in direct response to the contact with a client.  Maybe resending
lists counts as a service, though.  It is certainly a grey area.  But then
the whole AUP is a grey area...

> Assuming that the first assumption is correct, the next question I
> would ask is: If the agreement clause about "no servers" is intended
> to keep people from sucking up upload bandwidth, e.g. with ftp or http

I think they already handle this with their restrictive bandwidth caps.  No,
I believe that the "no servers" clause is for liability protection.  When I
first signed up with @Home, the AUP said, to paraphrase: "Sure. Run a
server.  Just don't come crying to us when you get hacked.  Don't mess up
the network, and don't make us angry."   There, there was a bunch of talk
about the insecurities of cable modems and how the ignorant home users with
large bandwidth could be the source of the next DDoS attacks.
The AUP changed to its current wording soon after. "No servers. Oh, and no
more than 128k upstream, either!"

> Now I would assume that if I make a large forwarding list, and I have
> lots of traffic, then I am probably violating the intent of the user
> agreement.  However, if my first assumption is true, then I'm already
> violating it in the same way without the mailing list.

If I want to start up a friendly netgame with a couple of my friends, that
usually involves somebody running a server.  We're all on @Home.  This is
expressly against their AUP, but take a look at how many 24.net Half Life
servers are out there...

> Here's a secondary question.  If I set up a webcam and have it (using
> an ftp client, not a server) upload a new jpeg continuously to my
> webspace on @Home's server, am I violating the agreement?
> What do you think?  Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

I believe that their AUP is just in there to give them the ability to wash
their hands of the whole thing if you get yourself into trouble.  If your
machine gets compromised and is used to mount an attack on all the root DNS
servers, all @Home has to do is say, "Well, its not out fault.  He violated
the AUP."  I think they use the AUP as grounds for enforcement, but they
don't actively enforce the terms of it.

People have often commented on the regular network scans that @Home does on
their users.  Surely they have found my FTP and HTTP servers, no? Its not
like they are hidden. But I have never heard anything about it.  One day
they may decide to throw me off, but they haven't in the year I've had the
service.

(Well, there was that time when I had my Cable TV disconnected.... grrr.
The cable guy disconnected my modem, then they told me the couldn't
reconnect it because 'I wasn't their customer.' I'll share that story will
you all some other time.)

Anyway, I'm not ready to try my luck at adding the rest of the services,
though, like DNS and mail.  I'm just happy they are letting me go with what
I have.  I hope they continue their blind eye kind of thing...  I am not a
lawyer, of course, but it seems to me that if you are a good net citizen,
then they aren't going to bother you.

That said, I want to co-locate a SPARCstation2 somewhere with a real
internet connection. It is a small, low-powered machine that shouldn't be
too much of a load.  Anyone have any ideas, or more useful, prices?