Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-working-from-home dept.

An increasing number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) around the world have been blocking more and more access based on accusations of copyright infringement. Those demanding the blocking assert that high standards are followed when making the decision. However, those studying the situation are finding otherwise. Given the scope creep demonstrated by these activities there is legitimate concern for the future availability of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) on those providers.

TorrentFreak covers analysis from University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist on the topic via his personal blog:

A group of prominent Canadian ISPs and movie industry companies are determined to bring pirate site blocking efforts to North America. This plan has triggered a fair amount of opposition, including cautioning analyses from law professor Michael Geist, who warns of potential overblocking and fears that VPN services could become the next target.

Michael Geist's personal blog jumps right in with a discussion of likely expansions to the scope of blocking and other sources of blocking over-reach.

The Bell coalition website blocking proposal downplays concerns about over-blocking that often accompanies site blocking regimes by arguing that it will be limited to "websites and services that are blatantly, overwhelmingly, or structurally engaged in piracy." Having discussed piracy issues in Canada and how the absence of a court order makes the proposal an outlier with virtually every country that has permitted site blocking, the case against the website blocking plan now turns to the inevitability of over-blocking that comes from expanding the block list or from the technical realities of mandating site blocking across hundreds of ISPs for millions of subscribers. This post focuses on the likely expansion of the scope of piracy for the purposes of blocking and the forthcoming posts will discuss other sources of blocking over-reach.

Once a technology or practice is in place, it is usually extended and abused beyond its original purpose. Even in the short history of the World Wide Web as well as the Internet, scope creep has shown itself to be a real problem.

Sources :
Canadian Pirate Site Blocks Could Spread to VPNs, Professor Warns
The Case Against the Bell Coalition's Website Blocking Plan, Part 5: The Inevitable Expansion of the Block List Standard for "Piracy" Sites


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:43PM (12 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:43PM (#640827) Journal

    Things like this are why we need Net Neutrality. The ISP shouldn't be screwing with my connection that I paid for. Just like the Water Department shouldn't be giving me less water, if I'm taking a bath vs taking a shower. Best summed up by a nice home alone quote. "Get outta here, you nosy little pervert ..."

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:46PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:46PM (#640831) Journal

      The ISP should charge you per gigabyte.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:52PM (2 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:52PM (#640837) Journal

        The ISP should charge you per gigabyte.

        That discussion is orthogonal to the discussion at hand. An economic case can be made for per-gig charging, truly unlimited charging, or grading-on-the-curve charging. It has nothing to do with blocking destinations.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:47PM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:47PM (#640869) Journal

          I pay for unlimited (with Bell): if they start blocking my vpn use, i'll be dropping that and going elsewhere. If THEY block it, i will be shopping around or going back into my cave.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:49AM

            by dry (223) on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:49AM (#641629) Journal

            I pay for 250 GBs with Telus, who have already been caught blocking a union site during a strike, along with a few hundred other sites that shared the same server. Unluckily I don't really have any other choice where I live.

      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:18AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:18AM (#641054)

        Not all too long ago access cost about a buck a minute. Then came AOL and for ~$US 20 a month you could get all the 32kbps second you could use. Fortunately for me I was acquainted with a couple of people who jumped in and brought a few T-1 lines and started their own ISP. Leased connections from the monopoly phone company, then under cut them on ISDN. Now days they are running their own Fiber to Home local network. On top of this they ascribe to Net Neutrality. So you can use a VPN or even host one on your own domain.
        From my own research there are quite a few outfits in the U.S. Just start looking around, they are there.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:05PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:05PM (#640849) Journal

      Another aspect of your analogy. Not only controlling your amount of water, but tainting it by injecting various wonderful JavaScript ingredients -- for your own good, of course.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:34PM

        by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:34PM (#641216) Journal

        At least the water company, theoretically is injecting the water with good things. While I would equate injecting my internet stream with JavaScript as similar to my water company injecting the stream with lead. Hopefully, neither is deliberately injecting your stream with nastiness.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:21AM

      by Hyperturtle (2824) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:21AM (#640950)

      Once, while setting up an ipsec vpn through an AT&T U-Verse connection, it didn't work; the negotiations kept timing out, but everything else was OK.

      I called AT&T and the business service representative told me that "only pirates use VPNs". I said that ok fine, I am trying to connect this business service to VPN with enterprise grade hardware to the company headquarters hosted at an actual physical AT&T raised floor data center, and you're telling me that I am a pirate? Who's your boss?

      Then it worked

      I later learned that HTTPS VPNs are passed through unmolested because they couldn't be sure if it was legit or not -- but these site blocks are undoubtedly going to be applied to https based VPN destinations, and likely hose up a bunch of legit tunnels set up because IPSec was already blocked by the ISP because no one but pirates use VPNs.

      This was before net neutrality was put into place, and was a great reason to enforce net neutrality. Now it sounds like an accepted business plan...

      Comcast was blocking VPNs for a while, too, and their salespeople would say sometimes if you are not pirating, then you are working, and you can't work from home on a consumer/residential connection, you need a business connection to do business because you might have a server hidden behind the VPN and that's a theft of service!"

      They completely twisted the "don't put a server on the internet on your residential connection because you need a static IP for it to reliably work without denying us money when you use dyndns or something" and turned it into a "that's no fair give us money because if you aren't pirating warez you are pirating service!"

      If we had dumb pipes and net neutrality... not much of this would be an issue.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:57AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:57AM (#640963)

      Uhm, I think you need to read up what Net Neutrality covers, they can still block stuff fine, they just can't slow traffic deliberately.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:06AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:06AM (#641033) Homepage Journal

        Uhm, I think you need to read up what Net Neutrality covers, they can still block stuff fine, they just can't slow traffic deliberately.

        Really? Where exactly does it say what you claim?

        Here's a link to the ruling [fcc.gov], please do enlighten us.

        From what I see, the 2015 FCC ruling says something completely different:

        Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as
        such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably
        disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access
        service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or
        (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices
        available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a
        violation of this rule.

        So. Are you just uninformed and spouting off about something of which you are ignorant, or are you just (poorly) attempting to spread FUD?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:49AM

        by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:49AM (#641114)

        So slow Netflix unless you pay extra violates net neutrality, but no Netflix unless you pay extra doesn't?

        Blocking is just throttling, turned all the way up.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:55AM

      by dry (223) on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:55AM (#641633) Journal

      We have net neutrality here in Canada, doesn't seem to be slowing Bell down in their plans to use this as a wedge to get rid of it. They're probably watching America and salivating at the prospects, fast lanes, blocking undesirables, with an ever expanding list of undesirables.
      Everyone focuses on fast lanes with net neutrality but the real danger is the site blocking, especially for political purposes. When certain parties web sites won't load or certain neighbourhoods can't access the voters registration site...

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:46PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:46PM (#640830)

    I can't wait... Block all VPNs, block all encryption, block the lot... cripple the internet beyond recognition
    Let's tear down this internet and start again from scratch but this time with Privacy built into the core!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:50PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:50PM (#640836)

      I can't wait... Block all VPNs, block all encryption, block the lot... cripple the internet beyond recognition
      Let's tear down this internet and start again from scratch...

      Too late. The Russians have already P0wned us.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:53AM (#641021)

        After the election....

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:46AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:46AM (#641111)

      Don't wish that. If that was to happen, somehow they will manage to get the current "security costs extra" model built into the core requirements, just like it is in HTTPS today (just try to find a main stream browser that supports ANY alternative (e.g. DANE) to the broken CA model, without giving huge warnings.

      Not even Firefox supports alternatives to the broken CA model.

      And no, don't say Let's Encrypt, they are not an alternative to the broken CA model, they are a part of it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:27AM (#641121)

        Not even Firefox supports alternatives to the broken CA model.

        Well, thanks to the add-on model, you can get it anyway. [mozilla.org]

        HOWEVER: On that page you'll find: "Not compatible with Firefox Quantum" — Great job breaking things, Mozilla!

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by SomeGuy on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:54PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:54PM (#640839)

    Error: This comment has been blocked by your ISP.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:15PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:15PM (#640855) Journal

    Your ISP sees you make multiple HTTPS connections to multiple servers. That's all the ISP can see. Virtual tunnels are built on top of multiple bonded HTTPS to make traffic analysis more difficult. The client program that you install could be cross platform and provide a local SOCKS proxy for everything else you do in order to make setup easy. Between client and server, multiple random packets can be generated when traffic drops below a threshold, in order to make timing analysis more difficult. When traffic is heavy, the client could randomly close some HTTPS connections and make new ones -- all transparent to the virtual SOCKS proxy and traffic that flows over it. All the ISP sees is that your residence connects and disconnects HTTPS sessions.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:18PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:18PM (#640856) Journal

      If those HTTPS connections are to Amazon, Linode, Google Compute or other clod instances, did any thoughtcrime actually occur?

      If a cluster node gets taken down in a forrest, can any of the client nodes hear it?

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:31AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:31AM (#641056)

        Yeah, all those clods tend to block things up.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:52PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:52PM (#640872) Journal

      Seems overly complex, but it could work. I like it.

      I like it because the problem here is that VPNs are easily powned, and they use one destination at a time.

      And, as the links below show, a lot of VPNs are compromised anyway, and traffic can be seen.

      https://www.techradar.com/news/hotspot-shield-vpn-compromised-by-location-revealing-bug [techradar.com]
      https://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/touchvpn-betternet-vpn-are-now-compromised-hijacked/ [cnet.com]
      https://www.deepdotweb.com/2018/01/31/leak-shows-us-army-nsa-compromised-tor-i2p-vpns-wants-track-monero/ [deepdotweb.com]

      One issue I see with your proposal, one connection to a known bad actor suggests that ALL https connections active at that
      time are also bad. You opened a https to A, B, and C, nearly simultaneously? B is known bad. Hence A and C are as well.
      It would be easy for the ISP to build a black list of bad sites, you'd be doing their job for them.

      It might be easier to just FIX VPNs so they weren't so damn vulnerable.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:49PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:49PM (#640912) Journal

        You raise a good point about simultaneous connections. So don't do that. Open one HTTPS. Then another. Then another. All traffic, after all, could be routed over one HTTPS. The purpose of multiple is to further disguise that you're using a VPN.

        It might be easier to just FIX VPNs so they weren't so damn vulnerable.

        Part of the problem is that the ISP knows you are even using a VPN at all. They should not even know. My purpose is to disguise it as HTTPS -- by actually really truly making it be HTTPS. Indistinguishable from HTTPS because it is HTTPS. Then you want to make it so that timing of things like keystroke typing, and other operations are not easily detectable. Maybe detectable with a lot of work -- but no proof.

        Because of the pervasive desire to know everything you're doing, all other internet protocols should change into HTTPS operations. (using up to date TLS) If I were designing an internet protocol for something (not web), I would make it actually use HTTPS for this reason.

        ISPs can't discriminate your traffic if they can't tell what kind of traffic it is. Part of how they want to discriminate is based on ports, or detectibility of protocols. So simply take that possibility away from them.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 1) by noneof_theabove on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:43PM (2 children)

    by noneof_theabove (6189) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:43PM (#640906)

    starting a 5:30am CST my privateinternetaccess connection to texas-east went down.
    submitted a ticket and waiting to hear back, but just checked 4:45pm and it came back in the last hour or so.

    Spectrum is the IPS and they forget like our politicians that if you are "barking" your the guilty one.
    Referring to their "spectrum good, dish bad" bunch of halloween characters commercial.
    Are they going "evil"?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:52PM (#640935)

      I noticed that as well; Texas usually gives me pretty good speeds, but it was down for me as well. My ISP is Cox if that has any indication.

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:41AM

      by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:41AM (#641061)

      Isn't Spectrum just Cox Cable, Time Warner, etc, etc...
      I've got Comcast in one of my places and it goes down all the time.
      It's a problem with cable connections. They go down, then back up all the time. I think it has to do with loads on th "nodes" (or neighborhood interconnects).

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:47PM (4 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:47PM (#640911) Homepage Journal

    Why not just require ISPs to be "dumb pipes" that pass whatever traffic you generate/receive without modification or interference?

    Perhaps there could be some exceptions for *valid* network management and congestion control purposes, to ensure the efficient operation of the ISP's network.

    Oh, wait. We used to have that (spottily enforced, but there nonetheless), and now we don't.

    This will continue to be an issue unless and until "last mile" network providers are treated like the utilities/natural monopolies that they are. When ISPs are required to actually *compete* for customers, they can either provide the services customers demand or go out of business.

    Hmmm...let's see what such a scenario could provide:
    1. Liberty -- which means "dumb pipes", as there is no gatekeeper to decide what you can/cannot transmit or receive;
    2. Competition -- which means a market-based environment where providers either cater to their customers or lose.
    3. Economic stimulus -- elimination of server port blocks and other abusive TOS reduces the barrier-to-entry for many business models
    4. More economic stimulus -- new and innovative *decentralized* services can flourish, providing opportunities to compete with anti-competitive, centralized spying conglomerates (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

    This seems like a job for those who support liberty, free markets, economic growth and economic freedom. So, who is it that consistently blocks (and in the US, removes) even small attempts at achieving this?

    Hmm....It's got to be those left-wing commies who hate America and have wet dreams about instituting sharia law everywhere, right? Not so much. And if that's not the case, how much of the rest of that narrative is fictional?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:52PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:52PM (#640914) Journal

      I've said this before.

      Dear ISP,

      Why don't you try just being the biggest, mostest fastest, bestest dump pipe there is? At a reasonable price. A lot of successful businesses have been built that way. Just be the best at what it is you are supposed to do, and do it at a reasonable price. And people will come.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:59AM (#641002)

        Bidness is not about making money. It's about staking out an ideology and getting government handouts to stay afloat while doing so.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:38PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:38PM (#640930) Journal

      For all the bitching about Comcast, as best I can tell, they do act as dumb pipes, once you get a business connection. (I can't speak to residential connections).

      At the office I also have Comcast and it is a business connection. I've had open encrypted connections up and running for months at a time between here and Australia, and never encountering any issues.

      At my prior residence, I was operating a service (listening on a port(s) counts as a service in their eyes) and their security people called me, because that was not something they allowed on a residential connection. They wanted me to buy a business connection for that. I said I'd change provider, and told them I needed it for inbound occasional SSH connections, and they went away. (It was an oddball port so they must have been running a port scan just to find it). Now I see them advertising that home connections can run services.

      They are bleeding TV subscribers but making just as much money selling fast internet connections these days (no royalty bills).

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:56AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:56AM (#640962) Homepage Journal

        For all the bitching about Comcast, as best I can tell, they do act as dumb pipes, once you get a business connection. (I can't speak to residential connections).

        For Comcast:
        That's (apparently, I'm not a Comcast customer) mostly true for residential connections, although they do block ports [xfinity.com] for "muh securitah!"

        Any decently configured firewall should block most of those ports, but I'd prefer to have the choice. And their port 25 blocking ensures that I will never become their customer. They aren't available where I live anyway.

        For Spectrum (Formerly Charter/Time Warner):
        Spectrum (if I'm reading the TOS correctly), bans NAT, external proxies, and most server ports). I may have incorrectly understood the former two, but the latter is clearly spelled out [spectrum.com]

        For AT&T:
        They block a more extensive set of ports than Comcast [att.com], including SMTP and NTP. No AT&T for me, thanks!

        For Verizon:
        It's unclear what Verizon does and doesn't block. Unlike the other three, they (or at least I couldn't find it) don't disclose which ports are blocked for residential users. Perhaps others (if you're interested) figure that out. This http://www.verizon.com/about/terms-conditions/residential-terms-service [verizon.com] migh be a good place to start.

        I chose the four above as they are the largest ISPs in the US covering nearly 65,000,000 broadband subscribers. [wikipedia.org]

        I'm sure that other ISPs have different TOS (mine, for example, doesn't block any ports) and port blocking profiles.

        If you don't have choices other than these guys (often the case), you'll need (as Frojack did) to get a business/commercial connection which is often significantly more expensive.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:24AM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:24AM (#640954) Journal

    Same goes for bittorrent, TOR, etc. We just need a protocol that blends better with the rest of the traffic, over commonly used ports. But most important is being able to communicate without being tied to a service provider. Then we can use anything we want.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:40AM

    by pipedwho (2032) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:40AM (#640998)

    The only problem with routing over a TLS VPN for everything, is that TLS runs over TCP, and TCP over TCP means compounding retransmissions and timeouts. The best underlying protocols for VPN are UDP and ipSEC at the IP level. This lets TCP handle retransmission through the tunnel, without the tunnel also trying to retransmit lost packets.

    OpenVPN does TLS over port 443, so it looks like HTTPS to the ISP. OpenVPN also works over UDP, so it can be used efficiently where protocols/ports aren't being tracked and blocked.

    I even occasionally use an SSH tunnel as a VPN because port 22 is generally open on most networks, probably because it is so widely used for remote server administration and other remote terminal based activities. Too many corporate networks block SMTP and some even block IMAP and POP (even the secure variants), and I like to be able to get my mail through something other than a web client.

    Another problem with many commercial VPN providers is they provide reverse DNS domain names for their VPN end points that resolve as the VPN Company's domain. So a blacklist is easy to create and track once you decide that 'Company X VPN Service' needs to be blocked, just by doing a reverse lookup.

    A good VPN provider should be modulating it's endpoints through a large pool of diverse IP addresses. Reverse lookups should resolve as some innocuous domain. And VPN clients should be using a private distributed network protocol to share IP addresses between clients to avoid DNS lookups during the connection phase. Optionally TLS should be used to blind the use/protocol from visibility to simple protocol based blocking tools, and other methods should be employed to thwart traffic analysis.

    Anything less than the above and I have trouble getting back to my mail server from various 'hostile' corporate (or country) networks.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:36AM (#641124)

    But many people think it's not such a great idea.

(1)