nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels () cistron nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:09:39 +0000 (UTC)
In article <cistron.407CDBCC.60004 () he iki fi>, Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi> wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:that's somewhat the opposite of empowerment. if a "spam solution" can take away that crisis and the expense is that my dsl-connected end host has to tunnel its e-mail to someplace out in <www.vix.com/personalcolo> then that's a tradeoff i can live with.You, sure, how about the people who are not really computer literate and use SMTP AUTH to send their mail from various places? Remember that convinience almost always outweighs security with the general population. If it wouldnŽt, the ICT market would not look like it looks today.
That was solved 6 years ago. You let them use port 587 instead of 25. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html Mike.
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Apr 20)
- RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)