RCN → Re: Not a scam; it makes sense.

Yeah, removing the port 80 block makes it a *little* easier to stomach. But it's actually $20/month - YIKES! However, the sales guy was nice enough to waive the "installation charge" for me ... gee thanks ...

Am I "legally" allowed to run servers now (aka does the TOS allow this with a static IP)?

Oh, rcnman, you work for RCN? Do you know if my "static IP" address is really static? They told me to leave DHCP enabled, and my IP address did change to one in a new subnet. So is this new IP address hard-tied to my modem? Am I guaranteed to always get this same IP after reboot, long downtime, etc?

The salesguy said it was, but since he told me to use "configip" to check for the new one, I don't really trust him that much.....

Indeed I do work for RCN , And yes your Static is
truley static It's attached to your modems mac addr
so as long as the modem isn't swapped out you should be
all set

Ok, I understand a "need" to cut down on spam what with the legal implications and all. But blocking 25 completely is a friggin lazy way to do it.

Much as I hate to say it, this is something that *my* ISP (speakeasy.net) got right. They allow 25 open, but they also actively check for open relays and block them if found (once you correct the problem they open it up again).

Now, I'm not doing this as a plug for speakeasy, but instead trying to point out there are _smarter_ ways to deal with the problem than killing off a legitimate service. I don't really see how having a static i.p. is going to cut down on misconfigured routers, but it will fill the coffers for the coming lawsuit.

agreed. i use time warner roadrunner in NYC and they haven't had to resort to blocking 25 whatsoever. and the service is far superior (faster/more reliable) on top of that. and i pay about the same or less as my gf's RCN connection that i'm using at the moment.