Tired of Being Screwed By Cox (no pun intended)

[Adrian Mink]

Yes, but that would also increase their workload, probably to the point
of needing to hire more people with the expertise to determine effectively
secured servers. This would increase costs, and prices, all to provide
a service that probably less than 1% of their use base would even
understand,
much less take advantage of. If that was my decision to make as a business
owner,
it would be a no brainer.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shadow" <shadow@digitalnirvana.com>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Tired of Being Screwed By Cox (no pun intended)


<snip>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>