http://www.ukonline.net/broadband/broadband8000.php

"We do not offer a newsgroup service on our broadband services. We also
block ports 25, 80, 8080 and 3128 on all of our broadband services in order
to maintain quality of service for all of our customers, so you will not be
able to run a mail or web server."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!

I can see POTS management trying their head
around new technologies again and coming up with
random loony tunies again.

Ah yes, today we shall block port 8181 because it
is port 8181's turn today to maintain quality of service
for all our customers.

Tomorrow we shall block port 666. Its the devil
port and we don't support devil workshippers on our network
to maintain quality of service for our customers.

On Friday, the 13th, we shall be blocking port 13.
We don't want to scare anybody to maintain quality
of service for our customers.

Just so that you know we care about quality
of service for our customers, we are blocking
port 69 today as well. It is a filty port.


These stupid lying POTS management fscks have should
not be lying to the public, and should be reported
to trading standards. Blocking those ports have
no impact on maintaining quality of service for customers.
If it is, they are running a shitty service in the first place
and overcharging for a fraudulent service that requires investigation
and criminal prosecution.

7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in
news:ZTASe.102118$G8.86252@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk:

This is INBOUND blocking to prevent people from running servers. Those
ports equate to SMTP, web servers and web proxies.

The policy is basically to stop people using a residential line for
Internet access as something else. It also takes out problems with open
relays and proxies which the spammers and warez pups will use to suck up
bandwidth.

It is a perfectly logical business choice. If you want to run a server
such as that you should get an account which allows that in the T&Cs.

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

cw wrote:


No it isn't logical as you put it.

1. NOTHING can be blocked by this method. Its childish incovenience
to put it mildly. Loon POTS managers in charge have gone mad.

2. If you instead say you are trying to block servers, then they should
it put it in the advertising to make pretend their operations are legal
and wait for step 3.

3. It is illegal to block any ports and then sell it as an internet service.
You can and should be sued for it and it will NEVER stand up in court.
A customer has paid for internet service in good faith and is entitled
to internet's full services, and if he's not being given any of it in
good faith, with a lie about 'customer service levels' WHICH WILL BE
PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW AS A LIE, then he is entitled to sue and
win enormous damages under consumer protection rights.
Its as if Royal Mail deciding they will deliver
your birthday cake, having illegally
eaten a percentage of the pie with an illegal T&C about how much
of your pie they can eat in transit.

On 04 Sep 2005 19:46 GMT, 7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:

Illegal ? Hmmm, under what Act ? If the ISP makes it clear that they offer
a service with some restrictions, and that they can change the terms of the
service where they dem necessary, it is for the consumer to beware.

Only if they were the only company you could use would there be any way to
complain it was an unfair restriction. Out of interest, which ISP blocks
8080 (and the others you quoted) ? Peter M.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!

"7" <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:6aISe.102402

The POT calling the kettle black me thinks!

Erm no. Which law is this exactly?

Tony

"7" <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:6aISe.102402$G8.66455@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...

I won't hold my breath given your wonderful record in telling us what can be
done, yet doing nothing about it...

7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in
news:6aISe.102402$G8.66455@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk:

How'd you work that one out? If those ports are blocked then surely
anything running on those ports is blocked. There are numerous reasons
this could come in handy. For example some business fella decides
they're going run 2000 server with IIS but doesn't do anything to lock
it down. This prevents all the code red, nimda and similar variants from
compromising the system. It also prevents the SMTP component from being
used as a spam relay amongst other things.

We are always being called in to clean up after people doing things they
don't understand and then buggering themselves up in the process.

Yes people in the know can simply change the port, but that renders all
the standard scanners useless and anyone knowing enough to change the
port should be able to figure out how to lock the server down or at
least run Windows Update.

It is clearly stated in the terms and conditions. There is no attempt to
obscure it.

As others have said, under what law? Go talk to NaNOG or any of the other
continental equivalents where blocking is routine amongst Internet
Providers, backbone/transit carriers and the like. Ports 137-139 are the
most common as NetBIOS traffic very rarely has any reason to pass network
borders.

Blocking of any kind is not illegal hence we get spam filtering,
firewalls, IDS etc. It would only be classified as misleading advertising
if the company concerned advertised the service as not filtered.

Which reminds me, there is another form of legal blocking called a
killfile..

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

cw wrote:

Who told you that? And how certain are you?
Clue -> Do even have an idea why 80 AND 8080 is blocked?


Jee wizo mr clueles security man, just stick to your day job ok.


Well you just answered everything in just one short sentence.
The ports have no bearing on what services are run on it.
Its just incovenient if you don't stick to traditional port numbers.

Bwaahahahahah! Are you sure of this mr security man?

poster wrote:

Trade description act.

You can try that on the judge and see if he agrees.

Thats what he's gonna be thinking as well!!
What's his position if here were a consumer that had to read volumes
of T&C and ordered something that isn't internet by virtue of trickery?
Internet has reasonably precise meaning.
And there are distinctions like ADSL and dial up for it
delivery. So its illegal to call a TCP/IP service full of blocked ports
an internet service when it isn't. Its something else and wrongly
takes away market share from companies that offer the full
legitimate internet services. Judges have in the past have ordered
dopey companies that try to stretch meanings of words
and sell apples for oranges to take down their advertising
or face the court for contempt.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:32:57 GMT, [7] said :-

Total rubbish Slick.

Go on, take them to court Sonny.


You have said lots of complete hogwash birdbrain, and not once backed
any of it up with any action whatsoever.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:32:57 GMT, 7
<website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:

All you have shown by the above is that your knowledge of law is (if
possible) even worse than your knowledge of the internet.


Your case would not get as far as a judge. It would be rejected before
that, as being totally without merit.


Not to anyone who knows anything about it.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Kids-They're not sleeping, they're recharging!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:53:47 +0100, Spin Dryer <me2@privacy.net>
wrote:

This is "7" we are talking about. I have always assumed that his nym
was intended to tell us how many brain cells he has, but was being
rather boastful :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Life is only as long as you live it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"7" website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com wrote in message
news:6aISe.102402$G8.66455@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
http://www.uk.clara.net/homeaccess/ft_unlimited.php

Been available for probably 5 years or more. Fairly sure they haven't been
sued over it yet.

"cw" <usenet@fidei.DEADco.uk> wrote

Maybe, but they are your ISP, not your mum! Security is the responsibility
of the server owner/operator and whilst I would have no objection to these
ports being blocked on request, to unilaterally close them means [even being
generous] that the product should be advertised as a *partial* Internet
service.

This obligation [or opportunity] to IT professionals started long before
Internet access was common, and will remain in demand long after these
controls are put in place.

Sure, but have you considered how it impacts existing customers. What
measures have been put in place for them, what workarounds, what transition
period, what assistance...???

This kind of nonsense seems to apply to most ISPs at the moment, changing
service levels at a whim to "help" customers where there is a five star
security threat [as defined by the Sunday Sport] to a certain port or
protocol. The fact that security exploits occur on these ports or protocols
BECAUSE these ports or protocols have a legitimate, valued use seems to be
of no concern to the ISP.

Very much a case of grabbing the money, then.... "who cares?"!!

- Mike

7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in
news:nP1Te.103051$G8.72702@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk:

Well let's see. Port 80 inbound is blocked by a firewall. Someone tries to
initiate a connection to a customer on port 80 and it is going to be
blocked. So that means something is blocked right? If nothing is blocked at
all as you state then there is absolutely bugger all for you to be whinging
about as the blocking doesn't actually do anything.
You have a great continuity in logic...

Well I could offer you plenty of references of people who can vouch for my
technical knowledge and abilities but I wouldn't want to inflict a moron
like you on them.

Unfortunately the only way to prove this part is in figures which I don't
have. I do believe however that blocking these ports versus not blocking
these ports will reduce unauthorised usage of servers. It cannot be
designed to block it completely and the only other alternative is deep
packet inspection which needs extra hardware and software versus a couple
of extra words in the IOS config.

Yes. I am currently looking through the logs of my server. These show scans
against port 21 with warez pups trying to find anonymous ftp servers. I
also see virus/worm activity aimed at IIS on port 80, which doesn't bother
me seen as FreeBSD doesn't run IIS.
I see the occassional bruteforce against port 22.
Apart from this I see only three other connect attempts. These are ports
143 and 1080 with port 12345 popping in there on one occassion.

*snip*


--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

Alex Heney wrote:
Is there nothing you don't know everything about?

You really are the biggest know it all, know nothing fuckwit on Usenet.

cw wrote:

Idiot!!

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 02:06:47 +0100, "Connall Conchobhar"
<Connall_Conchobhar@hotmail.com> wrote:

There is very little I know everything about.

There are quite a lot of things I know something about. "7" has shown
no sign ever of any rational knowledge.


If you think that, then you have VERY little knowledge of usenet.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If only women came with pulldown menus and online help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mike H wrote:

Very much so.
Stretching definitions by creative marketing methods is as
old as marketing itself. Not so long ago, 'beef burgers'
were being sold with 10% beef. Why they don't call it by
its real name referring to the remaining 90% contents
i.e. pork chicken rusk mixture?
Because you can't sell pork chicken rusk mixture and thus
there is lot of commercial value in mislabelling it
to call it beef burger. And that is at the expense
of legitimate companies offering the real beef burgers.

The same is being done to the internet with POTS management
trying to get their heads around new technology.

I mean which stuuooopppid POTS management fsck wants to
come here and explain what port blocking means?
And of these stuuuooopid fscks, which idiot is brave
enough and honest enough to market their service a *partial*
internet service because they are so afraid of losing market
share? If losing market share is the case, then they DESERVE to lose market
share, because they are stealing it from legitimate
operators who offer full and proper internet service.
They are stealing from legitimate operators by lying
(and not what you and I might call marketing).

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:12:05 UTC, "Mike H" <no@default.com> wrote:

But it doesn't just affect the customer if (for example) they run an
improperly configured mail server. It leads to (inter alia) the ISP's IP
ranges being put on spam blacklists.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]