On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Veldy wrote: > They are probably avoiding the message of "not allowing servers" because so > many DSL users CAN run servers. They need to compete. Cable infrastructure > is setup as a client system and not a server system. It is very > asynchronous. This is the main reason they probably don't allow it (it > affects others on the same node in a negative way when the uplink is > saturated). When I was with MediaOne, it was very clear they did NOT allow > servers. It was in the document I signed when my modem was installed (and > it was a one-way modem at that). Find that document and then look to see if > they have modified it since, and I am confident you will find the clause > that states that they do not want you to run servers. There's not a mention of running servers on the AT&T Broadband Terms And Conditions page: http://www.attbroadband.com/services/other/TermsAndConditions.html On the other hand, Exhibit A (v) states that "You may not post or transmit any file which contains viruses, worms, "Trojan horses" or any other contaminating or destructive features." Doesn't this mean that running an IIS server infected by Code Red is a violation? Hmm. Deep. I'm finding myself agreeing with Nate. AT&T doesn't seem to know its policies itself. All of the (somewhat lacking, contradictory?) data is scattered across different sites, domain names, servers...we'd probably have better luck asking the Magic 8-Ball. "Answer unclear." Damn. Jima