Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Ward Dossche to Mike Powell on Mon Jul 25 2022 12:38 am

Mike,

Mine is so khrappy they didn't even know they were blocking 25. I decided not to fight them on it too much as I did not want them realizing they could block other ports, too. :O

Just wondering ... in the US could that be considered a violation of the first ammendment?

The first ammendment protects US citizens from (most) censorship by the *government*. Corporations (e.g. ISPs) are free to censor citizens however, so no, not a violation of any ammendment.

Rob,

The first ammendment protects US citizens from (most) censorship by the *government*. Corporations (e.g. ISPs) are free to censor citizens
however, so no, not a violation of any ammendment.

Oh dear, never looked at it that way.

So when I am in the US the 1st ammendment does not protect these right for me?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220519
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hello Rob,

Just wondering ... in the US could that be considered a violation of the
first ammendment?

The first ammendment protects US citizens from (most) censorship by the *government*.

"Congress shall make no law ..." - 1st Amendment

Corporations (e.g. ISPs) are free to censor citizens however, so no, not a violation of any ammendment.

Corporations are people. (Gerry Spence)

For Life,
Lee

--
Food for the Fun of It

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Mike Powell to Ward Dossche on Sun Jul 24 2022 09:17 am

Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

... if anything, to get out of running
servers on a home cable connection and being able to host mail directly instead of jumping through hoops to get past a port 25 block.

What you're saying is you've got a khrappy internet-provider...

Mine is so khrappy they didn't even know they were blocking 25. I decided not to fight them on it too much as I did not want them realizing they
could block other ports, too. :O

... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate

It's fairly common to block port 24 here to force a commercial account. I shifted to port 25 to get around it.

xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)

Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Nick Andre to Ward Dossche on Tue Jul 26 2022 01:41 pm

On 25 Jul 22 00:38:58, Ward Dossche said the following to Mike Powell:

Just wondering ... in the US could that be considered a violation of the ammendment?

Pretty sure most if not all US and Canadian ISP's by default block port 25 a many require that you sign up for expensive business plans to have a static and open ports... as I had to.

Nick

Yup. BTW I said port 24 a minute ago, meant port 23 (telnet). Cox cable did that 3 years ago and we dropped them. A year later they refused to host email at a reduced price and required you pay the full pagage ans swap back to them. I got rid of cox for good.

xxcarol\

--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)

On 13 Aug 2022, Carol Shenkenberger said the following...

Yup. BTW I said port 24 a minute ago, meant port 23 (telnet). Cox
cable did that 3 years ago and we dropped them. A year later they
refused to host email at a reduced price and required you pay the full pagage ans swap back to them. I got rid of cox for good.

that's a shame. i know comcast gets a lot of flack for being one of the first big crummy cable isps, but they surprisingly don't seem to block anything.

i used to host my own email but office365 is too convenient for a lazy bum
like me. the bbs users don't need another email address ;)

... That's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Re: Re: Quiet?
By: Ward Dossche to Rob Swindell on Sat Aug 13 2022 12:16 am

Rob,

The first ammendment protects US citizens from (most) censorship by the *government*. Corporations (e.g. ISPs) are free to censor citizens however, so no, not a violation of any ammendment.

Oh dear, never looked at it that way.

So when I am in the US the 1st ammendment does not protect these right for me?

I honestly don't know how much of our constitution-protected civil-rights applies to non-citizens, but that wasn't really the point of my message. My point was: corporations are free to censor, so long as its not based on "protected categories" (e.g. race, religion, gender).

Rob,

I honestly don't know how much of our constitution-protected civil-rights applies to non-citizens, ...

I would say the 1st ammendment would apply, but not every ammendment fals into that category.

I alreedy asked at Cabella's and the 2nd ammendment does not apply to non-citizens.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220519
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)