maverick215
join:2002-10-03 | reply to No_Servers
Re: Comcat Port Forward
having open ports and running a server are two different things...
*yawn* |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| said by maverick215  :having open ports and running a server are two different things... *yawn* No they aren't. If the port did not have a service running and accepting connections, it would be in a closed (or filtered) state. *yawn*
said by angryman :
The person he talked to said that you can do whatever you want with your connection as long as you are not downloading and uploading massive amounts of information and specifically stated that open ports were not against their AUP. I imagine that is far more likely the case.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| reply to maverick215
said by maverick215 :having open ports and running a server are two different things... *yawn* Yes, I can tell that you are sleepy, but exactly what part of "I run my own mail server" did you fail to comprehend? |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :said by maverick215 :having open ports and running a server are two different things... *yawn* No they aren't. If the port did not have a service running and accepting connections, it would be in a closed (or filtered) state. *yawn* I thought about a similar reply, but I assumed that the poster would not understand such difficult technical details.  |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to No_Servers
said by No_Servers :
...exactly what part of "I run my own mail server" did you fail to comprehend?
Exactly what part of running a mail server is "providing a service" off premises? Assuming the subscriber is doing for his own use, I fail to see how it trips over the prohibition of providing a service off premises.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
maverick215
join:2002-10-03
| reply to No_Servers
said by No_Servers :said by Cabal :said by maverick215 :having open ports and running a server are two different things... *yawn* No they aren't. If the port did not have a service running and accepting connections, it would be in a closed (or filtered) state. *yawn* I thought about a similar reply, but I assumed that the poster would not understand such difficult technical details. so you're saying that just having a service running is the same as a server.... While I suppose the TOS might include such a loose definition, having such a service active does fit the criteria of a server that most would use.
Also, running his own mail server doesn't necessarily mean he is accepting connections from the outside. But, clearly, this isn't something someone with such extensive knowledge would consider.... |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| said by maverick215 :so you're saying that just having a service running is the same as a server.... While I suppose the TOS might include such a loose definition, having such a service active does fit the criteria of a server that most would use. No, I don't need to say it, the quite clear language of the Comcast TOS speaks for itself.
said by maverick215 :Also, running his own mail server doesn't necessarily mean he is accepting connections from the outside. But, clearly, this isn't something someone with such extensive knowledge would consider.... Apparently the Comcast Security Assurance team was able to connect to the OP's server from the outside, otherwise this thread would not be here. 
But clearly that is something that you did not consider... |
|
maverick215
join:2002-10-03
| said by No_Servers : No, I don't need to say it, the quite clear language of the Comcast TOS speaks for itself. Apparently the Comcast Security Assurance team was able to connect to the OP's server from the outside, otherwise this thread would not be here. But clearly that is something that you did not consider... You're obviously missing my point; let me spell it out for you.
I can set up my machine to show (virtually) all ports as being "open"
by your rationale this would be a violation of TOS even if these open ports would not have to allow access to any usable service.
regardless the clause you quoted would seem to allow precisely what he is doing in the first place:
use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;
ie you can provide services for personal use... exactly what the op says he is doing. But since you quoted it, I'm sure you already knew that. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to No_Servers
said by No_Servers :
Apparently the Comcast Security Assurance team was able to connect to the OP's server from the outside...
Irrelevant. The question is, could they actually use the server? If not, then the service isn't available to outsiders.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| reply to maverick215
said by maverick215 :You're obviously missing my point; let me spell it out for you.... And you are obviously ignoring the whole Comcast TOS by focusing on what you perceive to be a loophole.
Allow me to provide you with another Comcast TOS excerpt to digest.
said by Comcast TOS :
What happens if you violate this Policy?
Comcast reserves the right immediately to suspend or terminate your Service account and terminate the Subscriber Agreement if you violate the terms of this Policy or the Subscriber Agreement.
How does Comcast enforce this Policy?
Comcast does not routinely monitor the activity of individual Service accounts for violations of this Policy, except for determining aggregate bandwidth consumption in connection with the bandwidth consumption provisions of this Policy. However, in the company's efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, it will respond appropriately if it becomes aware of inappropriate use of the Service.
In other words, the OP has likely not presented the entire story in this thread, and you are not doing him or anyone else a favor by your nitpicking. I think it is quite obvious to most that the Comcast Security Assurance team has better things to do than randomly scan for open ports on Comcast subscribers connections. They will only respond by terminating a subscriber's service if they detect a problem or receive a complaint.
Let us also not overlook this most important part of the Comcast TOS.
However, if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violates this Policy, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate under the circumstances with or without notice.
In other words, even if you (assuming that you are a Comcast HSI subscriber) may think you have found a TOS loophole, it is only Comcast's interpretation that really counts. |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :Irrelevant. The question is, could they actually use the server? If not, then the service isn't available to outsiders. See my reply above to maverick215 since it applies to your response as well. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by No_Servers :said by NormanS :Irrelevant. The question is, could they actually use the server? If not, then the service isn't available to outsiders. See my reply above to maverick215 since it applies to your response as well. It would not surprise me that there is more to the OP's story than he admitted. And, TTBOMK, all ISPs have escape clauses as you mentioned.
But all of that notwithstanding, the argument is about how absolute is the "no server" clause, not whether raising your butt into the sights of the enforcer's cannon will get you noticed by the enforcers.
Heck, even without an explicit "no servers" clause, my own ISP has language which allows them to act against abuse. The point is, running a server need not be abusive.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
No_Servers
@aol.com
| I think that the first sentence in this thread pretty much sums up the situation.
said by angryman :
Yesterday my service was suspended due to network abuse.
Since Comcast's interpretation of their own TOS is the only one that counts, no amount of nitpicking by any other party really makes any difference. |
|
maverick215
join:2002-10-03
| said by No_Servers :
Since Comcast's interpretation of their own TOS is the only one that counts, no amount of nitpicking by any other party really makes any difference.
So do you have stock in comcast? since you don't appear to be a comcast user. I'm just curious why you are such a fanboy.
As for me not doing anyone any good... yea I suppose any sign of backbone would be lost on sheeple, such as yourself. Bow to your HSI overloards!
You are doing NOTHING for the users of Comcast service, the service nominated as having the most restrictive TOS.
oh and PS you're wrong about Comcast's interpretation being the only one that counts. Since you're such an expert on the TOS, I'm sure you already knew this though. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to No_Servers
said by No_Servers :
I think that the first sentence in this thread pretty much sums up the situation.
Yes. However, even service providers whose business is selling connectivity to operators of email services have "no abuse" clauses. So the issue isn't whether the OP violated some conditional "no servers" clause, which includes specific language which suggests that a subscriber can run a server under certain conditions. Rather, the question is, what abuse did he allow that brought his connection to the attention of Comcast abuse?
So this isn't so much about "no servers" as it is about "no abuse".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
