[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Rolf Kutz <kutz at netcologne dot de>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Configuracion wireless en monowall
 Date:  Wed, 24 May 2006 10:27:14 +0200
* 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...

U2, Rolf