nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:28:08 -0400
At 8:36 PM -0400 4/13/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Now assume that someone in some strange and wondrous part of the world has a similar need. Are they authorized? According to whom?
Steve, you're authorized if you say you are and agree to accept responsibility. Most corporations would readily provide the addresses of their mail servers; anyone on DSL or cable connection could do the same. But by changing the default behavior to block port 25 until requested, you could readily address the spam problem. It would take some work on the part of operator community (hence the subject), and doesn't fit in the world wide commune perspective of networking, but it would make the Internet far more useful for everyone. /John
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Robert E. Seastrom (Apr 14)
- Routing issues Simon Brilus (Apr 14)
- Re: Routing issues Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Routing issues Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Apr 14)
- Re: Routing issues Nick Feamster (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Rob Nelson (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Adrian Chadd (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)