My ISP closed some ports need help! - SSH

This is a discussion on My ISP closed some ports need help! - SSH ; Basically my isp has closed some ports, well I should say they have closed all ports except for port 80 of course. Which doesn't really bother me until I tried to do web cam chatting with my girlfriend back home. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: My ISP closed some ports need help!

  1. My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Basically my isp has closed some ports, well I should say they have
    closed all ports except for port 80 of course. Which doesn't really
    bother me until I tried to do web cam chatting with my girlfriend back
    home. I know that there is something called port forwarding, yet I know
    nothing about it, can someone steer me in the correct direction to get
    around this issue. Thanks in advance.


  2. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!


    On 5 Jan 2006 17:08:53 -0800, nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >Basically my isp has closed some ports, well I should say they have
    >closed all ports except for port 80 of course. Which doesn't really
    >bother me until I tried to do web cam chatting with my girlfriend back
    >home. I know that there is something called port forwarding, yet I know
    >nothing about it, can someone steer me in the correct direction to get
    >around this issue. Thanks in advance.



    What you're proffering isn't exactly plausible, but if it's true
    then you need to get a different ISP.




  3. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the only
    one available.


  4. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    >>>>> "nsellers" == nsellers writes:

    nsellers> Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is
    nsellers> the only one available.

    If you can get an account on an external machine which runs an SSH server
    on port 80, you may be able to connect and use SSH port forwarding to get
    around the restriction -- or perhaps not, if they are using an HTTP proxy
    rather than simply filtering TCP traffic based on the port number.

    Of course, you may be court-martialed for doing it...

    --
    Richard Silverman
    res@qoxp.net


  5. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    nsellers@gmail.com writes:
    > Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the only
    > one available.


    Sounds like you could use a unix shell account on some box that has
    an ssh server listening on port 80, connecting to it from teh base
    vis the -D dynamic proxy option, and get some web cam software that
    supports SOCKS or socksifying your machine.

    Dunno if any commercial shell accounts could do this for ya. Worst
    case, you could get yerself a dedicated colocated box somewhere but it
    might cost ya $100 a month for a good one.

    Got any computer geek buddies with a linux server on the net with fat
    bandwidth?

    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  6. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Anonymous wrote:
    > On 5 Jan 2006 17:08:53 -0800, nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >>Basically my isp has closed some ports, ....

    >
    > What you're proffering isn't exactly plausible, but if it's true
    > then you need to get a different ISP.
    >


    If you read the End-User-License for personal Internet access from the
    majority of ISPs, you will find you are *not allowed* to run server
    class software. They enforce this by inhibiting specific ports to flow
    from the ISP to the subscriber; specifically
    80,8080,8081, 443:- all HTTP protocol ports
    25,110,143:- the email ports
    20,21:- the FTP ports
    23:- Telnet
    (likely to include 22, the ssh equiv of {ftp,telnet} )
    In fact, you are probibited from even using port alternatives,
    eg mapping your server ports into other numbers, say moving 80 to 10080.
    Now you can probably get away with this as long as the bandwidth doesn't
    get to large, as that IS monitored and you will be expelled promptly.

    Closing down port 25 (smtp, outbound email) is actually performing a
    great service for us all - - namely, it helps control the spam generated
    from an 'open relay mail server'

    To get access to server class ports, you need Server Class service
    agreement from the ISP.

    excerpt from EULA:
    You agree not to use, or allow Users to use, the xxx Broadband
    Service, the Adelphia Network, the Equipment or the Software:
    .....
    (g) to run a server of any type in connection with the xxx
    Broadband Service, or to provide network or host services to others via
    the xxx Network. Prohibited uses include, without limitation,
    running servers for PPP, FTP, HTTP, DNS, POP, SMTP, NNTP, Proxy
    (any variety), DHCP, IRC, TELNET, TFTP, SNMP and multi-user
    interactive forums, and remapping of ports for the purpose of operating
    a server on the xxx Network;

    Yes it is plausible, practical and easily implemented in the TCP stack
    of the ISP server or his firewall.

    --
    ---
    Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)

  7. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!


    >>>>> "JB" == Jeff B writes:


    JB> If you read the End-User-License for personal Internet access from
    JB> the majority of ISPs, you will find you are *not allowed* to run
    JB> server class software...

    All true enough, except that it's all irrelevant. He's talking about
    outbound filtering, not inbound.

    --
    Richard Silverman
    res@qoxp.net


  8. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!


    On 05 Jan 2006 21:36:32 -0800, Jeff B wrote:
    >Anonymous wrote:
    >> On 5 Jan 2006 17:08:53 -0800, nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>Basically my isp has closed some ports, ....

    >>
    >> What you're proffering isn't exactly plausible, but if it's true
    >> then you need to get a different ISP.
    >>

    >
    >If you read the End-User-License for personal Internet access from the
    >majority of ISPs, you will find you are *not allowed* to run server
    >class software. They enforce this by inhibiting specific ports to flow
    >from the ISP to the subscriber; specifically
    > 80,8080,8081, 443:- all HTTP protocol ports
    > 25,110,143:- the email ports
    > 20,21:- the FTP ports
    > 23:- Telnet
    > (likely to include 22, the ssh equiv of {ftp,telnet} )
    >In fact, you are probibited from even using port alternatives,
    >eg mapping your server ports into other numbers, say moving 80 to 10080.
    >Now you can probably get away with this as long as the bandwidth doesn't
    >get to large, as that IS monitored and you will be expelled promptly.
    >
    >Closing down port 25 (smtp, outbound email) is actually performing a
    >great service for us all - - namely, it helps control the spam generated
    >from an 'open relay mail server'
    >
    >To get access to server class ports, you need Server Class service
    >agreement from the ISP.
    >
    >excerpt from EULA:
    >You agree not to use, or allow Users to use, the xxx Broadband
    >Service, the Adelphia Network, the Equipment or the Software:
    >....
    >(g) to run a server of any type in connection with the xxx
    >Broadband Service, or to provide network or host services to others via
    >the xxx Network. Prohibited uses include, without limitation,
    >running servers for PPP, FTP, HTTP, DNS, POP, SMTP, NNTP, Proxy
    >(any variety), DHCP, IRC, TELNET, TFTP, SNMP and multi-user
    >interactive forums, and remapping of ports for the purpose of operating
    >a server on the xxx Network;
    >
    >Yes it is plausible, practical and easily implemented in the TCP stack
    >of the ISP server or his firewall.
    >
    >---
    >Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)



    nsellers said "they have closed all ports". (S)he made no distinction
    between inbound and outbound. To me, all means all. I agree the ISP
    could block most inbound unsolicited traffic. I also agree that many
    ISPs do exactly that. I don't agree with the rest.

    Blocking port 25, or any other port for that matter, is not a "service to
    us all". It's a brain dead approach that ISPs choose - especially
    the big sleazes (we all know who). The reasons are simple. First, just
    like all good 'Amerikan 'Korporations these 'daze, they've downsized,
    rightsized, off-shored, and otherwise dumbed-down their technical staff
    to a gaggle of minimum wage oompa loompas who have been programmed like
    automatons to believe ctrl-alt-del is the solution to every problem.
    Sensible computer scientists have put forward many well thought out
    approaches to effectively thwart spammers (DKIM, SPF, and TLS to name a
    few), but the upper echelon at most major ISPs won't spend the money to
    implement one or more of them because it's more profitable sit on their
    duffs and exploit customer ignorance. Second, it creates an opportunity to
    upcharge ("server class" as you call it) for nothing (which is what they do
    best, nothing that is). To call it pathetic would be an act of kindness, to
    call it an unfair and deceptive trade practice would be legally accurate,
    and to call it a string of four letter words would be a bullseye.

    - N
    - Why do I post anonymously? Because evidence and argument should stand
    on it's own merit and not be biased by who said it.



















  9. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!


    > - Why do I post anonymously? Because evidence and argument should stand
    > on it's own merit and not be biased by who said it.


    Being "biased by who said it" is simply the useful notion of "reputation."
    When you don't know enough about a subject but need to make a decision,
    you relay on the opinions of others. If you're deciding on a
    cryptographic cipher and can't analyze it yourself, your brother-in-law
    says it's great, but Bruce Schneier has written that it's not so hot --
    whose opinion are you going to go with? And what would you do if
    everyone's writings were anonymous?

    In the real world, we can't all be experts on everything -- or even,
    perhaps, anything.

    --
    Richard Silverman
    res@qoxp.net

    P.S. -- the word you want is "its," not "it's."


  10. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Anonymous wrote:
    > I don't agree with the rest.
    >
    > Blocking port 25, or any other port for that matter, is not a "service to
    > us all". It's a brain dead approach that ISPs choose - especially
    > the big sleazes (we all know who). The reasons are simple. First, just
    > like all good 'Amerikan 'Korporations these 'daze, they've downsized,
    > rightsized, off-shored, and otherwise dumbed-down their technical staff
    > to a gaggle of minimum wage oompa loompas who have been programmed like
    > automatons to believe ctrl-alt-del is the solution to every problem.

    yep! Bill Gates would sell keyboards with ONLY ctrl-alt-del :-)
    > Sensible computer scientists have put forward many well thought out
    > approaches to effectively thwart spammers (DKIM, SPF, and TLS to name a
    > few),
    > but the upper echelon at most major ISPs won't spend the money to
    > implement one or more of them because it's more profitable sit on their
    > duffs and exploit customer ignorance.

    not true. these techniques can still be defeated will sufficient
    motivation and effort, so why expend $$$ for a partial solution?

    > Second, it creates an opportunity to
    > upcharge ("server class" as you call it) for nothing (which is what they do
    > best, nothing that is).

    well this has some foundation, but I doubt you understand the
    complexity of giving an SLA of 99.999% reliability, performing hot
    cutover, and fully falut tolerant operations. I'll just say, I'm
    greatful I'm not on-call 24/7 any longer!

    > To call it pathetic would be an act of kindness, to
    > call it an unfair and deceptive trade practice would be legally accurate,
    > and to call it a string of four letter words would be a bullseye.
    >
    > - N
    > - Why do I post anonymously? Because evidence and argument should stand
    > on it's own merit and not be biased by who said it.
    >


    1) it would be nice to see some 'merit' instead of 'rant'
    2) having written software for 37 years, I've been "downsized,
    rightsized, off-shored" and have far more insight than this political
    rant
    3) you have no understanding of the spam problem and how difficult it is
    to fix it now that the horse is out of the barn. The RIGHT solution is
    all new email software world-wide, but that will never happen. The
    alternatives are closing open relay systems and techniques to verify the
    sender (which to date have all been defeated).

    Suffice it to say, we all have opinions and I'll keep mine and you're
    welcome to have yours.

    --
    ---
    Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)

  11. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!


    On 06 Jan 2006 09:02:55 -0800, Jeff B wrote:
    >Anonymous wrote:
    >> I don't agree with the rest.
    >>
    >> Blocking port 25, or any other port for that matter, is not a "service to
    >> us all". It's a brain dead approach that ISPs choose - especially
    >> the big sleazes (we all know who). The reasons are simple. First, just
    >> like all good 'Amerikan 'Korporations these 'daze, they've downsized,
    >> rightsized, off-shored, and otherwise dumbed-down their technical staff
    >> to a gaggle of minimum wage oompa loompas who have been programmed like
    >> automatons to believe ctrl-alt-del is the solution to every problem.

    > yep! Bill Gates would sell keyboards with ONLY ctrl-alt-del :-)
    >> Sensible computer scientists have put forward many well thought out
    >> approaches to effectively thwart spammers (DKIM, SPF, and TLS to name a
    >> few),
    > > but the upper echelon at most major ISPs won't spend the money to
    >> implement one or more of them because it's more profitable sit on their
    >> duffs and exploit customer ignorance.

    > not true. these techniques can still be defeated will sufficient
    > motivation and effort, so why expend $$$ for a partial solution?
    > > Second, it creates an opportunity to
    >> upcharge ("server class" as you call it) for nothing (which is what they do
    >> best, nothing that is).

    > well this has some foundation, but I doubt you understand the
    >complexity of giving an SLA of 99.999% reliability, performing hot
    >cutover, and fully falut tolerant operations. I'll just say, I'm
    >greatful I'm not on-call 24/7 any longer!
    >
    >> To call it pathetic would be an act of kindness, to
    >> call it an unfair and deceptive trade practice would be legally accurate,
    >> and to call it a string of four letter words would be a bullseye.
    >>
    >> - N
    >> - Why do I post anonymously? Because evidence and argument should stand
    >> on it's own merit and not be biased by who said it.

    >
    >1) it would be nice to see some 'merit' instead of 'rant'
    >2) having written software for 37 years, I've been "downsized,
    > rightsized, off-shored" and have far more insight than this political
    > rant
    >3) you have no understanding of the spam problem and how difficult it is
    >to fix it now that the horse is out of the barn. The RIGHT solution is
    >all new email software world-wide, but that will never happen. The
    >alternatives are closing open relay systems and techniques to verify the
    >sender (which to date have all been defeated).
    >
    >Suffice it to say, we all have opinions and I'll keep mine and you're
    >welcome to have yours.
    >
    >--
    >---
    >Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)



    That's some seriously sound logic there dude. Blocking port 25 is also a
    partial solution (in addition to being Machiavellian IMO). So maybe
    you should ask yourself why expend the $$$ on that?

    Next time you go to the doctor, be sure to explain that you don't want
    any treatments or medications that haven't proven to be 100% safe and
    effective in 100% of the patients treated 100% of the time...

    Any solution can be defeated with sufficient motivation and effort. For
    the solution to be effective, the "motivation and effort" to thwart it
    simply needs to exceed the payoff. DKIM, SPF, and/or TLS would raise the bar
    high enough that spam would be reduced from a scourge to a minor annoyance.
    Three cheers for Google and Yahoo, but two isn't enough.

    Please identify the ISP that delivers 5 nines. Even in military and space
    applications, that's rare.

    I do know about the complexity because it was my job for decades.
    That's the reason I'm passionate (call it a rant if you want).

    - N



























  12. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    > Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the only
    > one available.
    >


    Are you running windows? If so, make sure none of your own PC's firewall
    settings changed.

    --
    To reply by email remove "_nospam"

  13. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    >>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck writes:

    Chuck> nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the
    >> only one available.
    >>


    Chuck> Are you running windows? If so, make sure none of your own PC's
    Chuck> firewall settings changed.

    PC firewalls don't usually block outbound connections.

    --
    Richard Silverman
    res@qoxp.net


  14. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    "Richard E. Silverman" writes:
    > >>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck writes:

    >
    > Chuck> nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    > >> Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the
    > >> only one available.
    > >>

    >
    > Chuck> Are you running windows? If so, make sure none of your own PC's
    > Chuck> firewall settings changed.
    >
    > PC firewalls don't usually block outbound connections.


    Windows ones surely do, if they're outside the default profile of
    allowed outbound traffic from programs/ports unknown to it (or
    unapproved by the computer user).

    It's arguably the only reason to consider a pc software firewall.

    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  15. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Todd H. wrote:
    > "Richard E. Silverman" writes:
    >
    >>>>>>>"Chuck" == Chuck writes:

    >>
    >> Chuck> nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >> >> Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the
    >> >> only one available.
    >> >>

    >>
    >> Chuck> Are you running windows? If so, make sure none of your own PC's
    >> Chuck> firewall settings changed.
    >>
    >>PC firewalls don't usually block outbound connections.

    >
    >
    > Windows ones surely do, if they're outside the default profile of
    > allowed outbound traffic from programs/ports unknown to it (or
    > unapproved by the computer user).
    >
    > It's arguably the only reason to consider a pc software firewall.
    >

    the freebe Windows FW does not and is why we look for other solutions.
    many dislike and have significan problems with Norton NIS, but mine
    works well AND I can control both in/outbound traffic, regardless of
    which program is running.

    --
    ---
    Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)

  16. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Todd H. wrote:
    > "Richard E. Silverman" writes:
    >> PC firewalls don't usually block outbound connections.

    >
    > Windows ones surely do, if they're outside the default profile of
    > allowed outbound traffic from programs/ports unknown to it (or
    > unapproved by the computer user).
    >
    > It's arguably the only reason to consider a pc software firewall.


    No.

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
    becoming available."
    --Jason Coombs on Bugtraq

  17. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    "Richard E. Silverman" writes:
    > >>>>> "TH" == Todd H writes:

    >
    > TH> "Richard E. Silverman" writes:
    > >> >>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck writes:
    > >>

    > Chuck> nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    > >> >> Unfortunately I am on a Military Base and the ISP I have is the
    > >> >> only one available.
    > >> >>
    > >>

    > Chuck> Are you running windows? If so, make sure none of your own PC's
    > Chuck> firewall settings changed.
    > >> PC firewalls don't usually block outbound connections.

    >
    > TH> Windows ones surely do, if they're outside the default profile of
    > TH> allowed outbound traffic from programs/ports unknown to it (or
    > TH> unapproved by the computer user).
    >
    > This statement is true by definition, hence trivial. My point is I don't
    > think that's a common default configuration.


    That's where we disagree. Outbound application prompting for action
    (block/allow) is the default on a few of the big hitters out there
    with the exception of windows firewall. I see it quite a bit.

    > TH> It's arguably the only reason to consider a pc software firewall.
    >
    > Huh? Blocking inbound traffic is at least as useful.


    Inbound blocking is tremendously useful I agree.

    However, if the box is, as many broadband users are, behind a hardware
    firewall appliance of some sort already, that inbound protection is
    redundant.

    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  18. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Richard E. Silverman sez:
    .... It's very easy for
    > uninvited software to get on a Windows box. Certainly it's nice to be
    > alerted to unusual outbound traffic -- but that's often not going to be
    > useful, as the malware will often use protocols the user will also employ
    > constantly, such as HTTP.


    Yes, but they tend to work on "executable -> connection" association
    rather than plain protocol/port. The alert you get is "program foo
    is trying to access the Internet" and you can stop and think "hey,
    what's that foo, I don't remember installing it".

    Obviously, malware can alter its argv[0] etc., but this does
    catch some things.

    Dima
    --
    The most horrifying thing about Unix is that, no matter how many times you hit
    yourself over the head with it, you never quite manage to lose consciousness.
    It just goes on and on. -- Patrick Sobalvarro

  19. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    Anonymous wrote:
    > On 05 Jan 2006 21:36:32 -0800, Jeff B wrote:
    >> Anonymous wrote:
    >>> On 5 Jan 2006 17:08:53 -0800, nsellers@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Basically my isp has closed some ports, ....
    >>> What you're proffering isn't exactly plausible, but if it's true
    >>> then you need to get a different ISP.
    >>>

    >> If you read the End-User-License for personal Internet access from the
    >> majority of ISPs, you will find you are *not allowed* to run server
    >> class software. They enforce this by inhibiting specific ports to flow
    >>from the ISP to the subscriber; specifically
    >> 80,8080,8081, 443:- all HTTP protocol ports
    >> 25,110,143:- the email ports
    >> 20,21:- the FTP ports
    >> 23:- Telnet
    >> (likely to include 22, the ssh equiv of {ftp,telnet} )
    >> In fact, you are probibited from even using port alternatives,
    >> eg mapping your server ports into other numbers, say moving 80 to 10080.
    >> Now you can probably get away with this as long as the bandwidth doesn't
    >> get to large, as that IS monitored and you will be expelled promptly.
    >>
    >> Closing down port 25 (smtp, outbound email) is actually performing a
    >> great service for us all - - namely, it helps control the spam generated
    >>from an 'open relay mail server'
    >> To get access to server class ports, you need Server Class service
    >> agreement from the ISP.
    >>
    >> excerpt from EULA:
    >> You agree not to use, or allow Users to use, the xxx Broadband
    >> Service, the Adelphia Network, the Equipment or the Software:
    >> ....
    >> (g) to run a server of any type in connection with the xxx
    >> Broadband Service, or to provide network or host services to others via
    >> the xxx Network. Prohibited uses include, without limitation,
    >> running servers for PPP, FTP, HTTP, DNS, POP, SMTP, NNTP, Proxy
    >> (any variety), DHCP, IRC, TELNET, TFTP, SNMP and multi-user
    >> interactive forums, and remapping of ports for the purpose of operating
    >> a server on the xxx Network;
    >>
    >> Yes it is plausible, practical and easily implemented in the TCP stack
    >> of the ISP server or his firewall.
    >>
    >> ---
    >> Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)

    >
    >
    > nsellers said "they have closed all ports". (S)he made no distinction
    > between inbound and outbound. To me, all means all. I agree the ISP
    > could block most inbound unsolicited traffic. I also agree that many
    > ISPs do exactly that. I don't agree with the rest.
    >
    > Blocking port 25, or any other port for that matter, is not a "service to
    > us all". It's a brain dead approach that ISPs choose - especially
    > the big sleazes (we all know who). The reasons are simple. First, just
    > like all good 'Amerikan 'Korporations these 'daze, they've downsized,
    > rightsized, off-shored, and otherwise dumbed-down their technical staff
    > to a gaggle of minimum wage oompa loompas who have been programmed like
    > automatons to believe ctrl-alt-del is the solution to every problem.
    > Sensible computer scientists have put forward many well thought out
    > approaches to effectively thwart spammers (DKIM, SPF, and TLS to name a
    > few), but the upper echelon at most major ISPs won't spend the money to
    > implement one or more of them because it's more profitable sit on their
    > duffs and exploit customer ignorance. Second, it creates an opportunity to
    > upcharge ("server class" as you call it) for nothing (which is what they do
    > best, nothing that is). To call it pathetic would be an act of kindness, to
    > call it an unfair and deceptive trade practice would be legally accurate,
    > and to call it a string of four letter words would be a bullseye.
    >
    > - N
    > - Why do I post anonymously? Because evidence and argument should stand
    > on it's own merit and not be biased by who said it.


    I have to agree with you in most respects (and I know I am in a minority
    here). Closing port 25 causes great difficulty for mobile users who use
    different ISP's and can't contact their mail server because of port 25
    blocking. Forces continual reconfiguring of the mail client or usage of
    web mail (yuck).

    Upgrading to a 'business account' doesn't solve the problem for mobile
    users -- you can't take your 'business account' with you.

    I believe that when you purchase Internet access from an ISP, you really
    purchase Internet access -- not whatever access the ISP considers OK today.

    If you spam from your account, it is a simple matter to pull the plug.

  20. Re: My ISP closed some ports need help!

    > I have to agree with you in most respects (and I know I am in a minority
    > here). Closing port 25 causes great difficulty for mobile users who use
    > different ISP's and can't contact their mail server because of port 25
    > blocking. Forces continual reconfiguring of the mail client or usage of
    > web mail (yuck).


    been there, suffered that and until there is an accoutability trail as
    to who sent what -- I'll manage along with http access to webmail
    instead of my pop3 email client software.
    >
    > Upgrading to a 'business account' doesn't solve the problem for mobile
    > users -- you can't take your 'business account' with you.


    yep, your right. Your soultion?

    > I believe that when you purchase Internet access from an ISP, you really
    > purchase Internet access -- not whatever access the ISP considers OK today.



    > If you spam from your account, it is a simple matter to pull the plug.


    good solution! let's all vote for disconnecting spammers! PLEASE!!!



    --
    ---
    Jeff B (remove the No-Spam to reply)

+ Reply to Thread