On 8 Feb 2002, jon schatz wrote: > > Whether the device is performing correctly is not the question. The > > question is whether the device is appropriate at all in this context. > > It certainly is. Comcast (like all ISPS) sells alot more bandwidth than > they actually have. Without some type of caching system, their network > performance would suffer greatly. ***Caching wasn't turned on!*** Besides, your argument is that user privacy should be sacrificed to save a few cents each in bandwidth costs? > But you're not sending just any packet. you're sending an http request. > We dealt with this issue at my previous employer, and non-http requests > on port 80 were just passed through without any interference. This implimentation grabs everything going to port 80, anywhere, regardless of higher level protocol. Also, I may not be sending "just any packet", but i'm also NOT sending it to a comcast server. It's not theirs. > I truly don't buy it. No offense, but your level of paranoia seems to > match your email handle. I mean, if they really wanted to track all I *catch* them snarfing my traffic, and I'm paranoid?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 21:13:16 PST