Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?

["Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels () cistron nl>]

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0309202021530.25380-100000 () bubba numbnuts net>,
Justin Shore  <listuser () numbnuts net> wrote:
> Now I'm going to get even more off-topic.  It occurs to me that major
> changes to a protocol such as SMTP getting auth should justify utilizing a
> different tcp/ip port.  Think about it like this.  If authenticated forms
> of SMTP used a different TCP/IP port we netadms could justify leaving that
> port open on these same dynamically assigned netblocks in the theory that
> they are only able to connect to other authenticated SMTP services.  
> Doesn't that seem logical?

That's not exactly a new idea.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html  (december 1998).

Mike.