Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>]

On 4/27/05, Jerry Pasker <info () n-connect net> wrote:
> It means 10 different things to 10 different people.  The article was
> vague.  "Security" could mean blocking a few ports, simple Proxy/NAT,
> blocking port 25 (or 139... or 53.. heh heh) or a thousand different
> things.  There is a market for this, it's called "managed services."

Speaking of port 25 blocking for end users [note: not for transit
feeds or raw pipes] - here's my take on it. 
http://www.circleid.com/article/1039_0_1_0_C/

--srs
-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)