Can I run a web and mail server on Rogers@Home
Malcolm Ferguson
I'm a Sympatico HSE user. I'm not particularly enamoured with
Sympatico's latest announcement: filtering port 25 (SMTP). I'm thinking
of giving R@H another test drive to see if they've improved their
performance in my area. I have a .ca domain registered and can host it
on a dynamic IP address with no problems. I want to set up my own
low-usage web site and an SMTP server. Would there be a problem with me
doing this with Rogers@Home?
I've heard rumours that some @Home franchises perform network scans to
detect servers... is this true? If it is, is there anyway I can
configure a Debian GNU/Linux box to refuse connections from their
scanning server so that it doesn't detect my server?
TIA
Malc
Rob Borek
news:3B0BC11D...@yahoo.com:
> I'm a Sympatico HSE user. I'm not particularly enamoured with
> Sympatico's latest announcement: filtering port 25 (SMTP). I'm thinking
> of giving R@H another test drive to see if they've improved their
> performance in my area. I have a .ca domain registered and can host it
> on a dynamic IP address with no problems. I want to set up my own
> low-usage web site and an SMTP server. Would there be a problem with me
> doing this with Rogers@Home?
Yes. No servers. Especially web servers with a domain name associated with
them.
> I've heard rumours that some @Home franchises perform network scans to
> detect servers... is this true? If it is, is there anyway I can
> configure a Debian GNU/Linux box to refuse connections from their
> scanning server so that it doesn't detect my server?
Yes, and although you can block their scans, if users find out about your
web site (and they will, especially if they are on the same segment)
they'll report you for abuse and Rogers will disconnect you. Or, they'll
see an abnormal pattern for your uploads/downloads. Or, just notice the IP
address for your domain in a scan.
Why don't you get a web hosting provider and host your server there?
Sheesh... it's pretty damn cheap these days!
--
Rob Borek
Malcolm Ferguson
>
> Malcolm Ferguson <Malcolm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3B0BC11D...@yahoo.com:
>
> > I'm a Sympatico HSE user. I'm not particularly enamoured with
> > Sympatico's latest announcement: filtering port 25 (SMTP). I'm thinking
> > of giving R@H another test drive to see if they've improved their
> > performance in my area. I have a .ca domain registered and can host it
> > on a dynamic IP address with no problems. I want to set up my own
> > low-usage web site and an SMTP server. Would there be a problem with me
> > doing this with Rogers@Home?
>
> Yes. No servers. Especially web servers with a domain name associated with
> them.
>
How are they going to know there's a domain name associated with it?
> > I've heard rumours that some @Home franchises perform network scans to
> > detect servers... is this true? If it is, is there anyway I can
> > configure a Debian GNU/Linux box to refuse connections from their
> > scanning server so that it doesn't detect my server?
>
> Yes, and although you can block their scans, if users find out about your
> web site (and they will, especially if they are on the same segment)
> they'll report you for abuse and Rogers will disconnect you. Or, they'll
> see an abnormal pattern for your uploads/downloads. Or, just notice the IP
> address for your domain in a scan.
Like I said, it's for very low usage. What's an abnormal pattern in
uploads/downloads? What would be a usual pattern for a tele-commuter?
A game of Quake 3 is going to consume more up and down bandwidth in an
hour than this will in a month.
>
> Why don't you get a web hosting provider and host your server there?
> Sheesh... it's pretty damn cheap these days!
>
It's not cheap enough for the low amount of usage. I want the technical
learning experience which I won't get from a hosting site. I want the
control to do what-ever-the-hell I want on the server that I get the
impression takes more money at a hosting site. Plus lots of other
reasons too...
Malc
Wayne
news:3B0BC11D...@yahoo.com...
I have a friend that hosts his own website and mail server on Rogers@Home
and he's never had any problems. It's a .ca domain too.
Wayne
--
http://www.moneyforsurfing.f2s.com
ICQ: 38074969
AOL IM: kid8821
Kerry Liles
I guess you might get away with it if it is low traffic and Rogers doesn't
get around to scanning you (although I think I saw another post a while back
that claimed Rogers only scans for open SMTP (mail) servers and sort of
looks the other way at WWW or FTP servers unless the traffic logs alert them
to gigantic bandwidth shifts (or some rats you out)....
Regards,
Kerry
"Wayne" <ki...@home.com> wrote in message
news:wDUO6.50064$eK2.8...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Richard
However, that doesnt stop anyone from running servers anyways. I have a few
servers running, such as SMTP, HTTP, FTP and a couple others. If they dont
use a ton of bandwidth, you shouldnt have any problems. Their routine scan
(about every 8 hours) seems to only check for NNTP, probably because it uses
the most bandwidth. Their scanning servers are
authorized-scan.security.home.net and authorized-scan1.security.home.net.
There may be more, but none that Ive noticed in my firewall logs.
Generally though their server detection is by looking at how much
upload/download you use. Normal ive been told by them, is about a 1 to 5
ratio, 1mb up per 5mb down. If they see this the other way, 5up per 1down,
then theyre gonna be scanning you for servers.
for the past about 4 months I've been downloaing about 14gb/month and
uploading 5gb/month without any complaints. However, 5 months ago I had got
a complaint about running servers, and sending 0.4gb/day. That was probably
becuase I was was downloading far less than that. The best thing to do is
if you get complaints like this, pretend that you know nothing at all, and
just say you use napster or gnutella or something.
Overall Id say its fairly safe to run servers from Rogers@home.
Richard
"Malcolm Ferguson" <Malcolm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0BC11D...@yahoo.com...
Maiku
Web and ftp servers, if they are low bandwidth and no one in your area
complains about it, then you are fine. Running a SMTP server is more risky
though. With the web and ftp servers, I could always validate it saying
that I am using it in other places, but smtp server is harder to dodge.
The way it goes, in my experience.... at least in Vancouver, before Shaw,
running a server is fine if no one complains about it.
"Malcolm Ferguson" <Malcolm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0BC11D...@yahoo.com...
: Hi,
Dan Fraser
>Web and ftp servers, if they are low bandwidth and no one in your area
>complains about it, then you are fine. Running a SMTP server is more risky
I run web, pop3, http, imap and irc servers. Extremely low bandwidth
though. Haven't heard a peep from rogers except once, when I was running a
dhcp server by mistake on their non-filtering Zenith network, and screwing
up other customers. Ooops. :)
I'm sure if I had a leet warez/mp3/etc site, or anything even remotely
commercial, I would be shut down by now.
The "no servers" aup policy is just dumb. It's nearly impossible to use
basic internet functionality without running servers.
Napster is a server. FTP opens a server channel when you download a file.
ICQ accepts incoming udp -- it's a server. Netmeeting is a server. Windows
itself can be a server unless you're careful with the settings!
--
Dan J. Fraser <dfr...@capybara.org>
PGP: 0xF3972A01 (17 B7 24 90 27 05 B8 92 4F 7F 61 18 B9 D1 17 CE)
"find /your -name 'base*' -exec chown us {} \;"
Stefan Schader
Fraser) wrote:
And then some complain about slow Rogers service when in fact some
inconsiderate users run servers.
Wayne
has capped the upload at 400 kbps, so why would a server cause such a slow
down?? If I'm capped at 400 kbps, why can't I use that upload bandwidth in
any way I choose??
Wayne (not running, or wanting to run a server, just curious)
--
http://www.moneyforsurfing.f2s.com
ICQ: 38074969
AOL IM: kid8821
"Stefan Schader " <elbeN...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3b0d7674.4866300@news...
Keith Medcalf
>Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I really don't get it. Rogers
>has capped the upload at 400 kbps, so why would a server cause such a slow
>down?? If I'm capped at 400 kbps, why can't I use that upload bandwidth in
>any way I choose??
>Wayne (not running, or wanting to run a server, just curious)
You can, however, their are vast quanitities of the truly igrorant who
believe that "servers" are "evil" because that is how they have been
programmed -- and they are too fricking stupid to apply "thought" to
determining the truth of the matter.
They do not realize that except for "the last mile", all "bandwidth" on the
core network is symetric in nature and capacity.
Richard
how their own equiptment works and what its capacities are. They also are
clueless how to setup a proper network so that one users usage doesnt
interfere with everyone else.
"Wayne" <ki...@home.com> wrote in message
news:rQgP6.60445$eK2.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Dan Fraser
>And then some complain about slow Rogers service when in fact some
>inconsiderate users run servers.
Are you implying that I'm an incosiderate user?
I use very little bandwidth. I even keep track.
Somebody downloading a couple of movies moves more data in an evening than I do
in a month.
--
Dan J. Fraser <dfr...@capybara.org>
PGP: 0xF3972A01 (17 B7 24 90 27 05 B8 92 4F 7F 61 18 B9 D1 17 CE)
"Accordion, n.: A bagpipe with pleats."
Mike Wason
frequently off-line during most of the night and early morning.
Grrr...