Comcast permanent block on port 25

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:26 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:12:05 -0800,
>   bruce <bedouglas at earthlink.net> wrote:

> > i've frequently run services ssh/vpn/http/smtp/etc... over the network,
> > knowing full well that i might be going against their service docs...
> 
> You know, if some company is selling "internet" access they shouldn't be
> blocking ports, putting in hidden proxies or similar crap. If there are,
> they should be selling web access instead.
> 
> > i've also known that i could get the biz level system to be able to legally
> > run these services. sometimes, i haven't had the cash, others not the time
> > to setup the biz accounts...
> 
> Worst case it's breach of contract. Violating a TOS isn't illegal in itself.
> 
> > but don't confuse your running a service with somekind of "individual
> > freedom" thing...
> 
> It wouldn't be a big deal if there was real competition in the ISP
> business. But because there isn't and in some areas of the US, you can't
> get real internet access without paying exhorbitant fees. (Essentially
> making you buy an unneeded level of support that is normally or required
> by businesses.)
----
the cable companies in the US typically sell a residential Internet
package which requires that you not run a mail or web server as part of
their terms of service and typically block inbound access to ports 25 &
80 to those customers. Many also block port 25 outbound access to all
but their own SMTP servers. In exchange for this 'crippled' Internet
service, they charge roughly 1/3 the cost of a 'business' based Internet
service which doesn't block anything at all. It seems reasonably fair to
me.

Craig