Apr 8 2008, 06:27 AM
QUOTE(mytescocom @ Apr 8 2008, 12:14 AM)
So does this means if the car accident rate increases, we shud just reduce the highway speed limit to 50km/h?? Because the highway has many potholes, and the authority has no means to fixed the potholes, we conviniently introduce a speed limit reduction to everyone?? Come ON!!
Your analogy doesn't apply in this case as it isn't a matter of bad infrastructure (highway with many potholes). It's lusers causing problems for the rest of us.Added on April 8, 2008, 6:40 am
QUOTE(abubin @ Apr 7 2008, 08:59 PM)
It's not a good idea to do this for an ISP. They can't use corporate mentality to run the business. They the the ISP!! How many ports can they block? Today they block port 25, tomorrow port 110 and so on. Pirates, spammers, hijackers and so on will always find other ports. This would means blocking whole range of ports in the end.
That's a slippery slope argument. There's no basis for you to say that because today they block X, tomorrow they'll block Y. If they're going to block Y it's going to happen anyway.What the beef is with TM should be is that they implemented it like cowboys! There wasn't advance notice when it was implemented and not just that, the block is applied inconsistently with some people facing it and some others not.
Added on April 8, 2008, 6:53 am
QUOTE(asellus @ Apr 8 2008, 05:13 AM)
And yeah, I support TMNut move to block home SMTP servers from being operated.
It's not as if home SMTP servers (those on dynamic IPs) have any real chance of reliable delivery these days anyway 
Quote
0.0172sec
0.65
6 queries
GZIP Disabled