Tired of Being Screwed By Cox (no pun intended)

[Shadow]

Craig White wrote:

 > Actually a lot of service providers are doing this and in fact,
 > Earthlink has been doing this for quite some time now.
 >
 > If it reduces spam, it's a good thing.

In general, I agree with you on this point.  However, this also punishes 
those people who do know what they are doing.

 > If you get a business account, you can run your own smtp server but
 > not on the residential service.
 >
 > You can always vote with your wallet.
 >
 > I thought that their explanation was more than adequate.

In some situations, voting with your wallet is not an option.  Why 
should an experienced sysadmin have to pay 3 to 4 times more when they 
aren't the ones causing the problem in the first place.

An optimal solution would be to block selective ports that cause 
problems (such as port 25) by default.  Then allow ports on specific IPs 
to be opened, after a customer has shown proficiency in securing his 
systems.  If abuse is later detected, the block could be permanently 
reinstated.  This would secure thier network while providing a higher 
level of customer satisfaction.


-- 
Chris Lewis
shadow@digitalnirvana.com
----------------------------------------
If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect.
      - Linus Torvalds
----------------------------------------