I guess based on the feedback so far (which I think is good for a worse case scenario) what I am wondering if replacing the switches with routers would do anything about getting access to the system?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote: > >> To me disallowing running servers is pretty close to the issue of > >> net-neutrality, so I prefer to stay away from such ISPs. > > It isn't usually the customer who is running a server: he doesn't know > > what it is. It's the botnet herder who controls the machine that runs > > the servers. As long as most end-user machines are running Windows and > > therefor probably running bots blocking ports is necessary. > > Do you really think that botnets can only run their servers on port 80? > Do you even think they would use port 80 by default, knowing that it's > the port most commonly blocked (on incoming connections)? > > Nah, blocking port 80 has nothing to do with "protecting the ISP from > herds of botnets". It's only a business strategy. > > In any case, in the quoted paragraph, I'm not talking about blocking > ports, but about contract clauses that say "thou shalt not run > a server". > > > Stefan > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > >
