Orcon's email servers in a spam blocklist

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Steven Ellis, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. Steven Ellis

    Steven Ellis Guest

    Steven Ellis, Nov 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steven Ellis

    MaHogany Guest

    On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:24:28 -0800, Steven Ellis wrote:

    > It will be interesting to see how quickly they managed to get this
    > sorted out.


    The solution would be to kill the connection that is spewing out the spam,
    and then go back to the blacklister with a list of what was done to kill
    the spam from spewing forth.


    Ma Hogany

    --
    "The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
    fries with that, if prompted."
     
    MaHogany, Nov 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steven Ellis

    Matty F Guest

    MaHogany wrote:

    > The solution would be to kill the connection that is spewing out the spam,
    > and then go back to the blacklister with a list of what was done to kill
    > the spam from spewing forth.


    Possibly the machine spewing out the spam spreads the emails around to
    many ISPs (by accident or design) so that any one ISP doesn't see that
    much spam from one IP address.
    However I see that some spam is addressed to a whole lot of people in
    alphabetic order at the same ISP. So it should be possible for the
    receivng ISP to detect that and block that IP address. Before anyone
    says that it would take too long to do that, it takes even longer to
    store the spam and send it to their customers.

    Also, the new spam containing just a gif is easy to detect. A single
    one of those and the IP address it came from should be immediately
    blocked. If there's time, even better would be to bounce all emails
    from that IP with a message about spam.
     
    Matty F, Nov 5, 2006
    #3
  4. Steven Ellis

    MaHogany Guest

    On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:28:41 -0800, Matty F wrote:

    > Possibly the machine spewing out the spam spreads the emails around to
    > many ISPs (by accident or design) so that any one ISP doesn't see that
    > much spam from one IP address.


    Incorrect.

    A compromised machine would be located on one network. If that machine
    starts spewing out spam or viruses which result in that network being
    blacklisted, then it is the responsibility of that network to contact the
    customer who owns the compromised PC and get it sorted out.

    I think that is the solution to SPAM - complainants get ISPs blacklisted,
    and those ISPs need to demonstrate that the compromised PC is fixed before
    the ISP is un-blacklisted.


    Ma Hogany

    --
    "The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
    fries with that, if prompted."
     
    MaHogany, Nov 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    MaHogany wrote:

    > On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:28:41 -0800, Matty F wrote:
    >
    >> Possibly the machine spewing out the spam spreads the emails around to
    >> many ISPs (by accident or design) so that any one ISP doesn't see that
    >> much spam from one IP address.

    >
    > Incorrect.
    >
    > A compromised machine would be located on one network. If that machine
    > starts spewing out spam or viruses which result in that network being
    > blacklisted, then it is the responsibility of that network to contact the
    > customer who owns the compromised PC and get it sorted out.
    >
    > I think that is the solution to SPAM - complainants get ISPs blacklisted,
    > and those ISPs need to demonstrate that the compromised PC is fixed before
    > the ISP is un-blacklisted.
    >
    >
    > Ma Hogany
    >


    Your 'solution' ignores the fact that the machine may be on a dynamic ip's.
    Further, your 'solution' implies ISP's should have the power to arbitrarily
    disconnect your internet connection


    --
    Voiceover: You watched it! You can't unwatch it!

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Steven Ellis

    peterwn Guest

    Shane wrote:

    > >

    >
    > Your 'solution' ignores the fact that the machine may be on a dynamic ip's.
    > Further, your 'solution' implies ISP's should have the power to arbitrarily
    > disconnect your internet connection


    Blocklist operators would start by blocking one IP and if the problem
    continues or re-surfaces would start blocking more and more related
    IP's. One problem that occurs is that some overseas ISP's find that
    spam customers are lucrative business and if they have a static IP,
    will readily allocate an alternative IP.

    One of the objectives of blocklist operators is to put pressure on
    ISP's to tidy up the act at their own end by not allowing open relay
    and by disconnecting customers with 'zombie' machines.

    The terms and conditions set by ISP's would be sufficiently broad to
    allow it to disconnect a spammer or an innocent person whose machine
    has become a spam zombie. In the latter case the customer may
    appreciate this as this may save the customer paying hefty excess
    bandwidth fees.
     
    peterwn, Nov 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    peterwn wrote:

    >
    > Shane wrote:
    >
    >> >

    >>
    >> Your 'solution' ignores the fact that the machine may be on a dynamic
    >> ip's. Further, your 'solution' implies ISP's should have the power to
    >> arbitrarily disconnect your internet connection

    >
    > Blocklist operators would start by blocking one IP and if the problem
    > continues or re-surfaces would start blocking more and more related
    > IP's. One problem that occurs is that some overseas ISP's find that
    > spam customers are lucrative business and if they have a static IP,
    > will readily allocate an alternative IP.
    >
    > One of the objectives of blocklist operators is to put pressure on
    > ISP's to tidy up the act at their own end by not allowing open relay
    > and by disconnecting customers with 'zombie' machines.
    >
    > The terms and conditions set by ISP's would be sufficiently broad to
    > allow it to disconnect a spammer or an innocent person whose machine
    > has become a spam zombie. In the latter case the customer may
    > appreciate this as this may save the customer paying hefty excess
    > bandwidth fees.


    Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?

    --
    Professor Farnsworth: Good news, everyone! The university is bringing me up
    on disciplinary charges. Wait! That's not good news at all!

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 5, 2006
    #7
  8. Steven Ellis

    Steven Ellis Guest

    Steven Ellis wrote:
    > Recently had some problems sending emails and it appears Orcon's load
    > balancers are now in a spam blacklist
    >
    > http://tqmcube.com/cgi-bin/checkbl?ip=219.88.242.4
    >
    > It will be interesting to see how quickly they managed to get this
    > sorted out.


    Well a quick check this morning shows that Orcon is no longer
    blacklisted.

    Steve
     
    Steven Ellis, Nov 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Steven Ellis

    peterwn Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:
    >
    > Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    > Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    > because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >

    They are two completely different situations. In the case of spambots,
    the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
    caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
    consent of the account owner. The ISP can then reconnect them once the
    account holder has cleaned things up, installed the latest updates,
    installed anti-virus etc - golly, after doing all this it would be
    easier to install Linux and Open Office and be done with it.

    It seems with p2p, the ISP's should come clean. They should not offer
    an 'eat all you like' service then clobber those whom they claim are
    abusing it. They should set limits and make them known.
     
    peterwn, Nov 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Steven Ellis

    Nig Guest

    In article <eil99k$rp$>,
    Shane <-a-geek.net> wrote:

    > Your 'solution' ignores the fact that the machine may be on a dynamic ip's.
    > Further, your 'solution' implies ISP's should have the power to arbitrarily
    > disconnect your internet connection


    They would know which subscriber had that IP at any given time.
    They can disconnect you prety smartly if your account isn't paid.

    --
    Nigel
     
    Nig, Nov 6, 2006
    #10
  11. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    peterwn wrote:

    >
    > Shane wrote:
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>

    > They are two completely different situations.


    They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a mix
    of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses

    > In the case of spambots,
    > the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
    > caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
    > consent of the account owner.


    And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the innocent
    users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
    only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host

    > The ISP can then reconnect them once the
    > account holder has cleaned things up, installed the latest updates,
    > installed anti-virus etc - golly,


    On the say-so of the spambot, who may.. or may not, clean up their act

    > after doing all this it would be
    > easier to install Linux and Open Office and be done with it.
    >


    Unfortunately Linux boxes get rooted to

    > It seems with p2p, the ISP's should come clean. They should not offer
    > an 'eat all you like' service then clobber those whom they claim are
    > abusing it. They should set limits and make them known.


    p2p isnt the only traffic that likes all you can eat connections... just
    the one in the spotlight

    --
    Zapp Brannigan: We're all from different cultures here. Some of you are
    white, and some of you are black. You're brown. [to Bender] And you're
    silver. But I don't care if your skin's red, or tan, or Chinese. You're all
    going to have to learn to die together.

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 6, 2006
    #11
  12. Steven Ellis

    El Chippy Guest

    "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    news:eile33$8kc$...

    > Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    > Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    > because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >


    Do you not see the major difference between the two?

    SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
    computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
    person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
    dont want.

    P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the software.
    Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

    I am willing to pay for peer to peer traffic, its something i want.
    Spam is something i dont want to pay for, (directly or indirectly)

    If you are opposed to P2P traffic then dont generate any by not running P2P
    software, meanwhile i will download the odd topgear episode, maybe a bit of
    Lost or whatever else we are a season or two behind on here in NZ.

    ISPs are fully within there rights to block any computer that has been
    infected and is pumping out spam or is being used as an open relay.

    They are also within there rights to traffic shape P2P traffic, so long as
    they are open and honest about it IMHO. In fact there may even be a niche
    market for an ISP that completely blocks P2P traffic.. (particualrly for
    business users) but you wont see me there anytime soon.

    If you dont agree with traffic shaping and demand full speed 24/7 then phone
    your ISP and ask them for a price for a 8Mbit international circuit with
    100% CIR ... might pay to be sitting down if you think that $49/month (or
    thereabouts) entitles you to this as some of the people on here seem to
    think.

    (Hint.. igrins 256/256kbps 100% Cir wireless plan is $469/month)

    El Chippy
     
    El Chippy, Nov 6, 2006
    #12
  13. Steven Ellis

    El Chippy Guest

    "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    news:eimasb$u2r$...
    > peterwn wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Shane wrote:
    >>> peterwn wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>>

    >> They are two completely different situations.

    >
    > They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a mix
    > of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses
    >
    >> In the case of spambots,
    >> the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
    >> caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
    >> consent of the account owner.

    >
    > And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the
    > innocent
    > users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
    > only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host
    >


    Or rather than disconnect them entirely how bout connect them to a seperate
    network which has no access to the real world, but automatically connects
    there first http request to a server identifying what the issue is, and
    giving info on how to remedy it ( a deicated server with all the latest
    security patches for Windows, common *nix distros and apps, commonly hacked
    software, and howtos and maybe allow http connections only to some security
    sites) Such a server/database could be housed at Peering exchanges and paid
    for by the ISPs that use the exchange. A collective effort by the ISPs that
    could lower the costs by building up a good knowledge base and lowering the
    costs of hiring all those helldesk staff after a while.
     
    El Chippy, Nov 6, 2006
    #13
  14. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    El Chippy wrote:

    >
    > "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    > news:eimasb$u2r$...
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Shane wrote:
    >>>> peterwn wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>>>
    >>> They are two completely different situations.

    >>
    >> They both chew up large amounts of data throughput, and both contain a
    >> mix of legitimate and illegitimate user/uses
    >>
    >>> In the case of spambots,
    >>> the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
    >>> caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
    >>> consent of the account owner.

    >>
    >> And in the case of misidentified mistakes (mistakes do happen) the
    >> innocent
    >> users are left trying to work out why their account has been suspended,
    >> only to be told by a help desk that they *may* be a spam host
    >>

    >
    > Or rather than disconnect them entirely how bout connect them to a
    > seperate network which has no access to the real world, but automatically
    > connects there first http request to a server identifying what the issue
    > is, and giving info on how to remedy it ( a deicated server with all the
    > latest security patches for Windows, common *nix distros and apps,
    > commonly hacked software, and howtos and maybe allow http connections only
    > to some security
    > sites)


    Lets be honest here, youre asking <clueless infected user> to do what they
    should have done in the first place (update their box to the latest/current
    patches)
    Add to that you are going to have to remove spyware/virii that will be
    fairly well embedded
    Not trivial in any sense of the word

    > Such a server/database could be housed at Peering exchanges and
    > paid for by the ISPs that use the exchange. A collective effort by the
    > ISPs that could lower the costs by building up a good knowledge base and
    > lowering the costs of hiring all those helldesk staff after a while.



    Unfortunately you can count on one hand the instances where the major ISP's
    have joined together in collective agreements that should lower all their
    costs (re: peering)



    The problem I have is, I run a mail server from my home adsl connection, I
    have spam problems (hell just reporting the spam is enough to oom my
    mailserver)
    All it will take under these so-called solutions is for <malicious
    complaint> or <inept-admin> to see the port 25 traffic coming from my
    connection and assume thats a spambot
    I *already* have problems sending mail because a blacklist lists *all* of
    ihugs domestic ips
    (Despite the word static in my rdns)




    --
    Leela: [to Bender] That aerosal head spray makes your antenna smell nice...
    Bender: Thank you.
    Leela: ...but it's doing long-term damage to the planet.
    Bender: So? It's not like it's the only one we've got.

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 6, 2006
    #14
  15. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    El Chippy wrote:

    >
    > "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    > news:eile33$8kc$...
    >
    >> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>

    >
    > Do you not see the major difference between the two?
    >
    > SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
    > computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
    > person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
    > dont want.
    >
    > P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
    > software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.


    P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
    I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples p2p
    Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of news
    lately isnt just some made up word
    Exchanges are congested because of p2p
    p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
    traffic issue)



    <snip miss the point>
    > El Chippy


    --
    Fry: I'm going to enroll here at Mars University and drop out all over
    again!
    Leela: You won't last two weeks!
    Fry: Aw, thanks for believing in me.

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Steven Ellis

    Craig Shore Guest

    On 5 Nov 2006 15:52:22 -0800, "peterwn" <> wrote:

    >
    >Shane wrote:
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>

    >They are two completely different situations. In the case of spambots,
    >the ISP should try to identify and disconnect them to reduce the misery
    >caused to other users. They generate traffic without the knowledge or
    >consent of the account owner. The ISP can then reconnect them once the
    >account holder has cleaned things up, installed the latest updates,
    >installed anti-virus etc - golly, after doing all this it would be
    >easier to install Linux and Open Office and be done with it.


    Telstraclear does this.

    And re linux, if all anyone ever wanted was email,a www browser and an office
    package then lots more people would have switched ages ago.
     
    Craig Shore, Nov 6, 2006
    #16
  17. Steven Ellis

    El Chippy Guest

    "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    news:eimgtc$7nu$...
    > El Chippy wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eile33$8kc$...
    >>
    >>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Do you not see the major difference between the two?
    >>
    >> SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
    >> computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
    >> person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
    >> dont want.
    >>
    >> P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
    >> software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

    >
    > P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
    > I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples
    > p2p
    > Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of
    > news
    > lately isnt just some made up word
    > Exchanges are congested because of p2p
    > p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
    > traffic issue)
    >


    Your web browsing affects my P2P traffic, i want your connection killed so i
    get better speeds...
    I pay for my traffic, same as you. That we use our connections for different
    things is not the issue. i could use as much bandwidth with streaming video
    traffic as with P2P. If you restrict P2P traffic, another way will be found
    to get the data moving.

    Overloaded exchanges are a telecom NZ monopoly problem (dishing the $$ out
    to the executives and shareholders while raping ISPs and users alike via a
    monopoly position), not a P2P problem. Once the ISPs get access to the
    copper this will hopefully be resolved by ISPs competing for the business on
    a level field. Orcon has already announced they will probably be
    implementing VDSL2... i cant see them doing that until they have a strategy
    for avoiding backhaul issues. Then you will be able to pick an ISP that
    provides what you want, and pay accordingly.

    P2P users will have to tolerate higher contention ratios in exchange for
    higher traffic caps/lower costs. Light use web browsers will be able to get
    lightning speeds but lower traffic caps. Gamers will go for an ISP that
    prioritises gaming traffic and provides local servers.
     
    El Chippy, Nov 6, 2006
    #17
  18. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    El Chippy wrote:

    >
    > "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    > news:eimgtc$7nu$...
    >> El Chippy wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:eile33$8kc$...
    >>>
    >>>> Am I to presume you have the same feelings about p2p users?
    >>>> Would you be equally happy if isp's arbitrarily disconnected accounts
    >>>> because of the amount of p2p traffic they generate?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Do you not see the major difference between the two?
    >>>
    >>> SPAM = rubbish sent from someone i dont know, probably using an infected
    >>> computer, that i have zero interest in receiving. So both myself and the
    >>> person whose computer is a slave in a botnet are paying for something we
    >>> dont want.
    >>>
    >>> P2P = Traffic i want, if i didnt want it i wouldn't be running the
    >>> software. Ditto for the person on the other end of the connection.

    >>
    >> P2P traffic affects *me*, and i dont use p2p (much)
    >> I struggle to get fullspeed on my connection *because* of other peoples
    >> p2p
    >> Our connections are shared, the contention ratio that has got a lot of
    >> news
    >> lately isnt just some made up word
    >> Exchanges are congested because of p2p
    >> p2p affects more than just the two people sharing (and thats just the
    >> traffic issue)
    >>

    >
    > Your web browsing affects my P2P traffic, i want your connection killed so
    > i get better speeds...
    > I pay for my traffic, same as you. That we use our connections for
    > different things is not the issue. i could use as much bandwidth with
    > streaming video
    > traffic as with P2P. If you restrict P2P traffic, another way will be
    > found to get the data moving.
    >


    well done, you miss the point so well I should start calling you fred

    > Overloaded exchanges are a telecom NZ monopoly problem (dishing the $$ out
    > to the executives and shareholders while raping ISPs and users alike via a
    > monopoly position), not a P2P problem. Once the ISPs get access to the
    > copper this will hopefully be resolved by ISPs competing for the business
    > on
    > a level field.


    *sigh*
    Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users


    > Orcon has already announced they will probably be
    > implementing VDSL2... i cant see them doing that until they have a
    > strategy for avoiding backhaul issues. Then you will be able to pick an
    > ISP that provides what you want, and pay accordingly.
    >
    > P2P users will have to tolerate higher contention ratios in exchange for
    > higher traffic caps/lower costs. Light use web browsers will be able to
    > get lightning speeds but lower traffic caps. Gamers will go for an ISP
    > that prioritises gaming traffic and provides local servers.



    Congratulations, you have just proved that your argument on p2p affecting
    nobody but the two exchanging data was invalid


    --
    Humorbot 5.0: Anecdote accepted. Snappy comeback not found.

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 6, 2006
    #18
  19. Steven Ellis

    Fran Guest

    Shane wrote:
    >
    > *sigh*
    > Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users
    >


    That could be changed to...

    "Use of the bandwidth affects other users"

    And still be true.

    Fran
    :):):)
     
    Fran, Nov 6, 2006
    #19
  20. Steven Ellis

    Shane Guest

    Fran wrote:

    > Shane wrote:
    >>
    >> *sigh*
    >> Your use of the bandwidth still affects other users
    >>

    >
    > That could be changed to...
    >
    > "Use of the bandwidth affects other users"
    >
    > And still be true.
    >
    > Fran
    > :):):)



    Thats very true, however for some reason the person I was responding to
    doesnt understand that basic concept

    --
    Bender: Save my friends! And Zoidberg!

    blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org
     
    Shane, Nov 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sponge

    New Spyware Blocklist and other stuff posted

    sponge, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,464
    Larry
    Mar 30, 2005
  2. Brendan

    Orcon News and Email servers

    Brendan, Aug 3, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    479
    Brendan
    Aug 6, 2004
  3. Brendan

    changing from Orcon UBS to Orcon Jetstream

    Brendan, Feb 25, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    563
    Brendan
    Feb 25, 2005
  4. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Orcon UBS 2MBit or stick with Telecom/Orcon 2MBit ADSL?

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    516
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Apr 29, 2005
  5. Nova

    Orcon's Forums (for orcon users)

    Nova, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    839
    Mutley
    Mar 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page