nanog mailing list archives
Re: Blocking port 135?
From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:54 -0500
So, you don't like the smell of fried chicken ? We keep an old overclocked 486-33, with a quadrupler around, making it run at about 100mhz.. for just this purpose... Complete the Chicken ritual, at Midnight, of course. Unprotect port 25, let alt.freak know... Route all mail to /dev/null.... Whip the chicken on to the old processor, and wait till the spam hits.... Fried chicken in 5 minutes or less. Mmmmmmm. :D Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:In reality blocking port 135 is almost never sufficient. Its slightly better than waving a dead chicken over your PC.its far less stinky than the chicken option though, you must admit that.
Current thread:
- Blocking port 135? Adi Linden (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Sean Donelan (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? bmanning (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Richard Irving (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Sean Donelan (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Jack Bates (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Sean Donelan (Aug 01)
- RE: Blocking port 135? Adi Linden (Aug 01)
- RE: Blocking port 135? Jason Robertson (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Bruce Pinsky (Aug 01)
- Re: Blocking port 135? Jason Slagle (Aug 02)
- RE: Blocking port 135? Bob German (Aug 02)