[ NNSquad ] Re: [OT?] NN definition(s?)

["Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com>]

> From: Richard Bennett [mailto:richard@bennett.com]

> 1) Does anybody else think Comcast interferes with BitTorrent
> *downloads*?

Well, Richard, on this rare occasion, I agree with you.  You explained it
pretty well.


> 2) Has it actually been established that RST spoofing is a clear
> violation of NN, in some way that RED isn't or real-time SYN dropping
> isn't?

Obviously, you can't violate something that is not well defined.  NN is as
vague as Comcast's TOS.  

However, it's a clear violation of TCP in more than one way.


> It seems to me that the purpose of RST spoofing is to bring the user
> into line with the TOS, by the indirect means of moving him to the
> bottom of the BT tracker's list of seeders by bandwidth. 

Well then I must be public enemy number one, because Comcast keeps trying to
bring me "into line with the TOS," thousands of times a month.  However, I
have never received any notice or warning about these enforcement actions
against me.  


> If the TOS are
> legitimate, so is the means of bringing about compliance, hence no
> violation.

By that logic, if they shot me dead, the homicide would be justifiable.
(grin)

I disagree (surprise, surprise, -grin-).  If I'm an abuser of their network
or the Internet, then they should take appropriate action.  Warn me to stop,
and if necessary, disconnect me from the net.  

Cheerfully,

Robb Topolski