Text 28107, 100 rader
Skriven 2015-09-08 15:56:52 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: NAT
===========
Hello David,

On Tuesday September 08 2015 19:35, you wrote to me:

 DD> DSL was costing me $720pa ($60 per month)

AUS$60 = EUR 38.

I Pay EUR 45 for 30Mbps/3Mbps + phone line + cable TV (digital)

 DD> My 4G costs $150pa

That's not bad.

 DD> The 4G has a much lower throughput quota but is sufficient for my
 DD> needs.

But it gives you a crippled connection. You can't run servers.

 DD> The 4G works her eat home, at my country estate, out on the road when
 DD> I'm traveling with my camper, an up and down the coast on little
 DD> brother's yacht (as long as we're not too far offshore). I'd need a
 DD> very long phone cord to get that coverage from DSL.

I can see why you prefer that over a fixed line.

 DD>>> It is all that is required by Pol4

 MvdV>> A 26 year old guideline. Oh c'mon, I am sure you can do better
 MvdV>> than that to justify such minimalistic connectivity... ;-)

 DD> Policy 4 is God - it commands all (check your secret rule book).

Sorry, I am not impressed by that line of reasoning.

 MvdV>> You can only make outbound connections because the ones you
 MvdV>> connect /to/ support incoming connections. You depend on them
 MvdV>> for your connection to the network. If they all were like you
 MvdV>> and only supported outgoing connections, you'd have no one to
 MvdV>> connect with.

 DD> Nor would anyone else.

Indeed. The network can only function if there are systems that accept incoming
calls. It can function if some do not. Some would consider the ones that do not
as riding piggy back on those that do.

 MvdV>>>> Pvt nodes can not accept incoming calls from others. One of
 MvdV>>>> my objections against Pvt nodes is that they want all the
 MvdV>>>> benefits of node status but they dodge the responsibility of
 MvdV>>>> contributing their fair share for the smooth operation of the
 MvdV>>>> network.

 DD>>> Such as? What exactly does a node contribute these days other
 DD>>> than a target for a file drop?

 MvdV>> Exactly that: a target for a file drop. But not Pvt nodes. You
 MvdV>> are not a target for a file drop, you can not accept incoming
 MvdV>> connections.

 DD> When "he who remains nameless" was throwing his weight around he
 DD> threatened to upload child porn to by system and contact the local
 DD> police.

If you do not want to accept the risks that come with accepting incoming calls,
you should not be awarded the benefits that come with it.

You participate in echomail. To get it you make use of systems that accept
incoming calls. They run the risk that you do not want to take.

BTW, I too had some files dumped on my system by the one who's name shall not
be mentioned. Not threatened, he actually did it. Not child porn but Nazi
stuff. Stuff that he believed to be illegal in The Netherlands and that could
bring me in trouble with the law. He was wrong, it was illgal in Germany, but
not in The Netherlands.

It was not a reason for me to block incoming Fidonet calls. Not even calls
coming from him.

 DD>  I forwarded that message immediately to my friendly police
 DD> sergeant along with all contact info I had for "Him". The matter
 DD> wasn't threatened again.

A sensible way to deal with it.

 DD> However, today there are other reasons.....

I am sure there are. "Reasons" however are no excuse to not contribute your
part of the smooth operation of the network. The way I see it, you get all your
mail from the JAMNNTP server of RC54. You do not run a system  that can send
/and/ recieve netmail by any of the standards defined by the FTSC. You are just
a user on RC54's system.

Sorry, but that is how I see it.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
 * Origin: Rheb genfu cnpvsvfg cvt fuvg chffl (2:280/5555)