* Quoting Alex Neuman van der Hans (alex at nkpanama dot com):
> Rolf Kutz wrote:
> >How does using smtps or vpn reduce abuse, if I
> >would be sending mail over my ISPs smtpd anyway?
> >And pointing to webmail doesn't really help
> >either. The question is whether you want to
> >offer _Internet_access or _web_access? Why not block
> >everything but Port 80? Abuse can be done with
> >ftp, ssh or netcat.
> Because your ISP would then block you for abuse, and there would be an
That would be my (the customers) problem, not the
> audit trail. People are free to offer services as they please, just as
> clients are free to purchase/use said services *if* they choose to.
> That's one of the uses of the captive portal page: to explain to your
> users what is or is not allowed on *your* network, which is *yours*, and
> not *theirs*. They are your *guests* and they *should* behave as such.
They might be *customers* who pay for the service
> That's the beauty of it. You *choose* to go wherever you want to go or
> not depending on whether or not they give the service you want to receive.
> In some countries there is a "due diligence" clause that requires
> internet café operators, libraries and such, in order to get a business
> license and/or permit, to install filters that will block any webpages
> that explictly declare they are for adults only if minors are allowed
> entrance and/or provide some basic protection. They won't fine you if a
Those filters often "protect" people from
websites that could educate them about health,
gender or racial discrimination, the pros and
cons of web filters and many more.
> "closing specific ports" method of firewalling. You will find a lot of
> people agree that it's more practical to only open your firewall to
> traffic you actually *want* and *need* and not the other way around.
I agree with the later, but if you offer a service
like Internet access you can hardly know what
traffic you need. That's one thing stateful
firewalling is for.
> Oh, and by the way, the "million flies can't be wrong" argument is
> similar to the "straw man" logical fallacy; it doesn't really refute the
It was a replication to your own "straw man". Mind
if I quote you again:
| This isn't as crazy as it sounds. I've set up several
| hotels/resorts/golf clubs like this, and I've been to quite a few here
| and all over the world that do the same thing.
> Have a great day...