** Reply to message from "Halcyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu,
4 Jan 2001 16:05:56 -0800
> > Although such a magnanimous rationale may have been the impetus, the
> > bottom line quickly took precedence. The main reason that @home scans is
> > to ensure that you are not running servers on their lower-priced product
> > packages. In Canada, their packages which allow running client-side
> > servers start at $169.99/month. If you are caught running servers on the
> > lower-priced plans, your connection can be terminated at their
> > discretion with no warning. I imagine there are ways to get around this
> > by using a proxy server though.....
> >
> > Jack Bowling
> >
>
> How would a proxy server get around this? I don't quite understand how they
> work. Do you see any problems with my solution, which is to simply have a
> firewall rule that closes the ports off to their portscanning box? Unless
> they try to access my box from outside the @home network, they should be
> none the wiser...or so I'm hoping. I don't think they would go so far as to
> sniff packets to see if there's SMTP traffic being sent to me.
I'll let you know in a month or so after my cable modem is up and
running. I'm still in the research phase myself. I imagine a search
engine like google could turn up lots of hits on this topic. However, if
you close off port 80 say, then I imagine that there is no way that
@home can say that you are running a web server. Lots to learn here.
Jack
Jack Bowling
Prince George, BC
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
