GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK |  Good work people
This is awesome news! I was one of these threatening to leave to uhhhh.... cox (shudders).
So now I can keep hosting my HL2 server and all is well.
Power to the people.;) |
|
mariolanning
join:2002-04-19
Tucson, AZ | Hmm They never cought me with my 2 web servers and E-Mail server.. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to GigahertZ420
Terrible news. I wish they held up that 5 dollar fine. |
|
GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| Yeah it sure would be terrible if a security expert such as yourself *somehow* got a 0 day exploit and was forced to pay... GULP... 14,000 spams * $5 = $70,000 !
I hope you were being sarcastic but if not, enjoy your fine - you security expert you! |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| I am no security expert. I think the main reason I am fine is because I don't click on links in instant messenger, install anything that popups in a web browser, use webmail clients that scan for viruses, and have an updated virus scanner running. Nothing out of the ordinary, or anything that anyone would consider expert. |
|
NetDroid2
join:2004-08-16
Excelsior, MN
| reply to GigahertZ420
hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year!
(That is if there was a spam out break this year.)
Or at the very least a nice network upgrade.
Its nice they changed the wording if I ever decided to go to DSL. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to insomniac84
With the recent WMF Zero-Day exploit all you would have needed to have done is viewed a webpage that included an exploited WMF file on it. That could have gotten you infected which, in turn, could have turned your system into a spam-spewing zombie. I think warning letters followed by service cutoffs are a better solution. (So long as there is sufficient customer service available to contest wrongly applied warnings/cutoffs and to restore service to people who clean their systems.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | reply to insomniac84
Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
| reply to insomniac84
So what you are trying to say is:
You don't:
Click on links in IM.
Install anything in pop-ups.
Use web-mail clients with virus scan.
Have an updated virus scanner.
Next time you might want to keep an eye on your grammar.
:P |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to GigahertZ420
I too was one that told them to put thier Business Class DSL where the sun didn't shine.
However, there has never been an issue with running servers on their service. Hell, they even have forward and reverse DNS features in their control panels.
They just were being Qwest trying to be more like cable tv, the service they bag on all the time. I think it's funny.. having been in the industry for so long, I have seen the battles play out on the actual battle field. Cable, especially comcast, always swore that they would not play the same games that satellite was. They spoke of all thier good qualities and frowned on the new business models and advertisment slams of DBS - now comcast and cable engage in the same thing. Futher, Telco makes claims they are better than cable services for various reasons but give them time, they start to play the same game. Qwest wanted to stop allowing servers "becasue they were afraid of bandwidth hogs affecting others in the area" - but wait! Isn't DSL a dedicated line I asked? He didn't have an answer.
The day Qwest stops allowing servers on their line is the day I don't need them any more. It's the ONLY reason I have them.
From what I was told by both a Qwest 'department manager' and my attorney, whom I sicked on Qwest - they have had indeed had many complaints. It's my understanding they threw this out to see if anyone would bit back - looks like they did. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to NetDroid2
said by NetDroid2  :hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year! Nah, the CxO's will just get larger bonuses
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
BJGillette
@ccreminder.com
| reply to GigahertZ420
Correction: Good work people
Greg @ Techdirt pointed out an error in our story at Email Battles. The $5 spam charge is still in.
I took the AUP copy from the sidebar instead of item 9 in the High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement PDF. Qwest got more credit than deserved.
At Email Battles, we have changed our copy to:Panicky Qwest execs responded, apparently bringing the legal hounds to heel. As a result, Qwest's Acceptable Use Policy no longer mentions a $5.00 per message charge at all. Correction: As of this writing, Qwest has not dropped the blue sky $5.00/message spam liability. But Qwest has changed the server limitations. Sorry for the inconvenience to all.
BJ Gillette, Editor
Email Battles |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | reply to shashinka
Re: Good work people
said by shashinka :Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. Of course not impenetrable, but I would think everyone would agree that just using a small amount of intelligence while on the internet is all it takes to be fairly secure. Unfortunately for you, you probably have clicked every ok message you run across and loaded some nasty stuff on your computer, so it hurts you to hear people say that that only happened because you lacked basic intelligence.
I suggest you get a platform that's not worth hacking, like a mac. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
1 edit | reply to DreamWraith
No I am not saying that and thanks for being my grammar checker. Just because he doesn't do these things doesn't mean that he should not be worried about infections. Lets not be nieve. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| reply to insomniac84
You got me. Actually I do watch what I install, click-on, and read, etc. On top of that I evaluate all sorts of security suites: McAfee's free suite that comes with Comcast runs on several of my families machines, Zonealarm on dial-up with my father, Charter's free suite on 1 of my machines, and my Cisco work computer has Cisco Security Agent with another vendors AV.
On the other hand you said you're running nothing and are nieve to believe that just because you do what you do that you're safe and duh to the others who don't know so!
I constantly update family members to watch what they install and what they're doing but definitely need to make sure they have suites because they yes are too ignorant about the way things work, unlike myself since I am all day on the computer reading, implenting and testing these systems. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| reply to fiberguy
Yes you would be correct that your specific copper line drop is the only one using the bandwidth for that dsl connection unlike cable where you can see others transmissions (shared medium like ethernet csma/cd or csma/ca) but you still have shared bandwidth on the DSLAM.
I have used servers on Charter, Speakeasy, and Covad but not on Verizon DSL which is my area. I don't think they are worried about people who know what they're doing with low bandwidth servers for their home such as people tinkering with SMTP, POP, HTTP and basic FTP servers but of those who maybe running FTP sites with illegal software, porn, or busy gaming servers. Their bandwidth engineers design the connections to these multiplexers anticipating the most residential traffic. Having these clauses in their TOS allows them to shut them down if they start getting latency or slowness complaints out of a certain DSLAM shelf. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Not sure if you know this, but I am in the industry and am very clear on how the technology works since I actually put my hands on this stuff.
However, there is something you are forgetting on not understanding about Qwest - they sold a service that was designed for business use and now they want to apply a residential TOS to it. It's not going to work.
Qwest, formerly US West, was the first company to take DSL seriously and deploy to the public while many others were busy dipping in cellular phones. US West/Qwest has always delivered a service that was not restrictive and had some of the most tools in place for the very use of netwokring including email, ftp, and web.
Qwest is back pedaling, and not realizing it. They want to build in their "protection" for themselves at the expense of their own product. It's like saying, "here, use our netwrok for your business use, run your servers and host your own email" then deliver the TOS that says you can't do any of that. The new TOS was poorly written as Qwest often has issues with one hand talking to the other.
Unless you are in the Qwest area, it's hard for you to understand what's going on.  |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | Very sorry. I didn't know that it was Business class that they were applying this to. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Yea... they are applying it to all classes of DSL. It even states in the TOS 'no matter residential or business' or something like that. |
|
