nanog mailing list archives
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood () cable comcast com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 23:16:23 +0000
On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run mail servers from their locations. The list of IPs certainly looked commercial. Jason
Current thread:
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Mar 02)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Christopher Morrow (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John R. Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John R. Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Dave Taht (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Stephen Satchell (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Livingood, Jason (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Stephen Satchell (Mar 01)