Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Mike Powell to Ward Dossche on Sun Jul 24 2022 09:17 am

Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

... if anything, to get out of running
servers on a home cable connection and being able to host mail directly instead of jumping through hoops to get past a port 25 block.

What you're saying is you've got a khrappy internet-provider...

Mine is so khrappy they didn't even know they were blocking 25. I decided not to fight them on it too much as I did not want them realizing they
could block other ports, too. :O

... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate

It's fairly common to block port 24 here to force a commercial account. I shifted to port 25 to get around it.

xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)

Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Nick Andre to Ward Dossche on Tue Jul 26 2022 01:41 pm

On 25 Jul 22 00:38:58, Ward Dossche said the following to Mike Powell:

Just wondering ... in the US could that be considered a violation of the ammendment?

Pretty sure most if not all US and Canadian ISP's by default block port 25 a many require that you sign up for expensive business plans to have a static and open ports... as I had to.

Nick

Yup. BTW I said port 24 a minute ago, meant port 23 (telnet). Cox cable did that 3 years ago and we dropped them. A year later they refused to host email at a reduced price and required you pay the full pagage ans swap back to them. I got rid of cox for good.

xxcarol\

--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)