Re: Usenet allowed from work?


"Leythos" <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.20ee30293f0aa55898975b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1183071666.341278.26670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
chilly8@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
The way this service works, someone could be on your network,
right now, to this subscrption service, and you might not even KNOW
it

Yea, I've listened to that mantra before - fact is that your type of
service is EASY to block and we already do that for all of our
customers.

Not as easy as it once was. While music streams are normally
access on port 1755 (Windows Media), 8000 (MP3) or
554 (RealPlayer), one streaming host I an considering
switching to, if the CRB royalty rates in America are
eventually defeated, uses port 80. Part of it is to make
is harder to block, without blocking out EVERYTHING,
including work-related sites. And since my domain is
not any site site blacklists, people would not have to
use anything like Tor, or anything like that. I keep my
streams at no more than 16K now, so that Tor users
can get my station (Tor tends to have a lot of annoying
rebuffering at anything much above 16K).

Basically, I will be assigned an IP address, where I
will assign a subdomain to it. Since it would all be
under my domain, it would be under the radar of
almost any web filtering system on Earth, as of
right now. So if and when I make the switch,
it will be that much harder for you to block,
and easier for users to access my station, without
having to use Tor, open proxies, or subscription
anonymity services.

Basically, it would blend in with all the other traffic
going out on port 80, and would harly be noticed
by most corporate network admins.


.

Quantcast