nanog mailing list archives
RE: Lazy network operators
From: "Michel Py" <michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:09:14 -0700
John Curran wrote: If we can fix this by changing default behavior to make such machines less useful to hackers, while still allowing anyone who wants to originate to do so at will via configuration, what is the harm?
Besides architectural purity (which still bears weight) the problem is that configuration costs money. I have my own SMTP server at home because I'm not happy with my ISP's smarthost. That same ISP can't reverse-lookup my static IP to return a PTR that has my domain name in it, explain me how they will build a filter that un-filters port 25 for my IP and does not for the next one. Michel.
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- 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)