[NCLUG] A question about a web server and broadband.

Daniel Miles milesd at cs.colostate.edu
Thu Feb 21 00:04:40 MST 2002


Alright, somebody tell me how to get off this damn list, I'm sick of
listening to flame wars. How is this better than spam?

On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 23:57, J. Paul Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John L. Bass wrote:
> 
> > Discussion and conspiracy to violate an ISP's rate plans probably don't
> > belong in this forum.
> 
> You're only going to get one message out of me, John, because it sounds
> like you're just trolling...
> 
> Asking how to configure a server to run on a high port does not constitute
> conspiracy to violate an ISP's AUP, and any ISP who tried to argue that in
> court would get laughed out of the courtroom.
> 
> Instead of complaining about those of us who are responsible users of
> bandwidth (which *may* include a small website), why don't you focus your
> attention on people spreading around Nimda/Code Red because they're
> stupidly running NT... or the people who send spam from their cable
> modems... or the people who try to run Gnutella/Morpheous/Kazaa clients all
> at the same time... I mean, there are an infinite number of situations you
> should be more concerned with than users who simply want to post a few
> things a low traffic website for a few friends to read/view.
> 
> As a side note, from your tone, I would assume you would defend
> AT&T's/Qwest's/@home's/etc. practice of (falsely) advertising a bandwidth
> rate with the intention of never providing anything near that rate, and
> conning naive people like you into believing that it's a "user" problem
> because they're too cheap to provide the necessary equipment to (in the
> case of cable modems) segment the network in such a fashion to provide the
> advertised service.
> 
> There *are* technical solutions to this problem that *don't* involve port
> blocking... if the ISPs are too lazy to investigate and implement them,
> that shouldn't be the fault of the customer; ignorant customers like you
> who swear up and down by the AUP are part of the problem by allowing ISPs
> to get away with this snowballing effect.
> 
> > There is no reason NCLUG should be directly involved, and liable for,
> > purposely violating any vendors rights should they decide to defend those
> > rights and seek recovery for such violations.
> 
> Well, at least you're covering your own ass in the event of a lawsuit
> against NCLUG... now do please shuttup so the rest of us can talk about the
> real (technical) issues associated with the initial question.
> 
> I'm done now... and don't bother responding, because I won't.
> 
> Later,
> Paul
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     J. Paul Reed            preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
>     What's the point in being nuts if you can't have a little fun?
>                                    -- John Nash, Jr., A Beautiful Mind
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCLUG mailing list
> NCLUG at nclug.org
> http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug





More information about the NCLUG mailing list