[6700] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: please help FreeNet by becoming a node
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Thu Mar 2 14:45:55 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000302102112.07617ab0@pop3.lvcm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:24:19 -0800
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
Cc: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>, cryptography@c2.net,
coderpunks@toad.com, fork@xent.com
In-Reply-To: <20000302145655.7C15A41F16@SIGABA.research.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 09:56 AM 3/2/00 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>It is worth noting that some bans on running servers are based on technology,
>not the business model of the provider. In IP over cable systems, there is
>much less bandwidth available upstream than downstream, and it's much more
>expensive to add more upstream bandwidth than it is to add downstream
>bandwidth. If you run a server, you're chewing up a lot of capacity, and
>affecting your neighbors.
>
>But you're right, it's a real concern for users of Freenet (btw, isn't that a
>trademarked term?) -- I have the same problem as you do.
Seems the firewall restriction is more of a concern. Anyone who cares
about their PC's integrity and communication privacy should have a firewall
for always-on connections. In the next year or so look for many/most cable
modems and DSL boxes to provide a firewall function or have it as an option.
--Steve
