[6701] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: please help FreeNet by becoming a node
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Mar 3 16:37:02 2000
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
Cc: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>,
Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>, cryptography@c2.net,
coderpunks@toad.com, fork@xent.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:06:20 -0500
Message-Id: <20000302210625.A1ECF41F16@SIGABA.research.att.com>
In message <4.3.0.20000302102112.07617ab0@pop3.lvcm.com>, Steve Schear writes:
> 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.
There are a lot of responses to that; the real issue is who controls the
security policy.
--Steve Bellovin
