From: Ben Laurie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 15:23:20 PST
Steve Schear wrote:
> At 12:45 AM 3/2/00 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> >It would be very nice if there were a Freenet _client_
> >instead of, or in addition to, the Freenet _server_.
> >What's the functional difference? None, actually :-)
> >The problem is that many US cable modem networks,
> >and some US xDSL networks, have strong policies
> >against running network servers, but not network clients.
> They have policies, but these policies are generally only enforced in the
> most egregious cases. Napster, a popular music community, is not blocked
> on @Home's network at this time and it can generate considerable upstream
> traffic. Most cable ISPs have simply set bandwidth limits on the upstream
> (128 kbps in the case of @Home) and found it sufficient.
BT's ADSL trial blocks servers completely. Now that they've reminded
people that it's naughty to reconfigure their ADSL boxes, the blocks
work, too. :-)
-- SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER: http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
Coming to ApacheCon? http://ApacheCon.Com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 15:25:32 PST