Recommended reading for cynics: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2304739,00.html At 06:02 AM 8/20/01, Jon Schewe wrote: >You are way over my head, technically. But this group (TCLUG) is full of >experts. > >But I do know ATT is not stupid. They have given you their defense for >what you have discovered. And you have discovered they filter internet >access; for whatever reason, to whatever degree. My hat's off to you. > >A recent posting discussed the possibility that M$ was allowing viruses >and worms in their OS. This, in order to justify trying to supplant >TCP/IP with a proprietary internet system. Such might be the case here. A >little cynicism is very healthy. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >On 8/19/01, 6:48:05 PM, Jon Schewe <jpschewe at mtu.net> wrote regarding Re Re >[TCLUG] AT&T filtering sites at 3.sdm.sdm: > > > > Yes, that's what they said, clearly not understanding the problem. >Here's the > > quote > > --start quote-- > > Thank you for writing AT&T BroadBand Cable Internet Services regarding > > the Internet service and Port 80. I apologize for any inconvenience > > which you have experienced with our filter on Port 80. > > > NOTE: We do not block your access to sites such as www.yahoo.com or any > > others. > > > It has been confirmed that a block will remain in effect (for reasons > > related to the Code Red worm) until AT&T BroadBand feels it is safe to > > remove it. This has been done to protect the network and we have no way > > of removing it or getting it removed, at this point in time. > > > Please refer to the following section of the Terms and Conditions which > > are applicable to this issue: > > > Section 10.9 You agree that AT&T and ServiceCo shall each have the right > > to take any action that either AT&T or ServiceCo deems appropriate to > > protect the Road Runner Service, its facilities and equipment. > > --end quote-- > > > This shows they're filtering inbound traffic, but (supposedly) not >outbound > > traffic. > > > After this message I sent back a clear example where I explain telnetting >to > > port 80 to check the connection. After that I got back a message that >they're > > looking into the matter, which is probably the best response I've gotten >out > > of them all weekend. Now we'll see if they really are looking into it. > > > > Rick Engebretson <eng at pinenet.com> writes: > > > > Please be more clear. Did AT&T say to you (in essence), "We're filtering > > > access to port 80, that's why its not working??" (FYI I am NOT a lawyer.) > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > On 8/18/01, 10:03:54 PM, Jon Schewe <jpschewe at mtu.net> wrote regarding Re > > > [TCLUG] AT&T filtering sites at 3.sdm: > > > > > > > > > > Well I wrote AT&T "tech support" last night. I've actually gotten a > > > couple of > > > > messages back. First one is the standard, reinstall TCP > drivers. Wrote > > > back > > > > that won't make a difference, I can connecto to SOME sites. So > they ask > > > for > > > > traceroutes to the sites, I don't think this will help, but it at least > > > shows > > > > a little more knowledge. So I send them along. I get back, we're > > > filtering > > > > access to port 80, that's why it's not working. Man are some > people just > > > > stupid or what? > > >