[37737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Stealth Blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy T. Bouse)
Wed May 23 16:46:15 2001
From: "Jeremy T. Bouse" <undrgrid@Toons.UnderGrid.net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:43:11 -0700
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010523114311.A14103@UnderGrid.net>
Mail-Followup-To: undrgrid, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010523124320.2647N-100000@sunny.netside.net>; from mitch@netside.net on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:00:50PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mitch Halmu was said to been seen saying:
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
>=20
> > Okay, I don't want to perpetuate this lil battle more than it needs
> > to however I do have a few observations that are blindingly glaring to =
me
> > and perhaps been overlooked...
> >=20
> > Mitch Halmu was said to been seen saying:
> [snip]
> > Point blank open-relays are not a good idea, they may have when
> > the technology was not there to do otherwise but come on, with SMTP AUTH
> > and TLS capabilities in most "reputable" mail servers there is absolute=
ly
> > no excuse for it. If you remove the open relays you remove a good bit of
> > the fscking spam that pollutes the net and annoys the hell out of most
> > people. And SMTP AUTH and TLS would not prevent your roaming customers
> > from sending and receiving and would actually HELP you verify it is the=
m.
> >=20
> > <snipped what I felt didn't need further encouragement>
> >=20
> > Respectfully,
> > Jeremy T. Bouse
>=20
> As I answered in a private post to a similar observation, you don't have
> to take my word for it. Perhaps you believe what Chip Rosenthal, the daddy
> of MAPS TSI, states on his own site about POP-before-SMTP Authorization:
> "Our users hated it - particularly those using MS Outlook".
>=20
Did I say POP-before-SMTP? I don't think I did... SMTP AUTH and TLS
are two completely setups than POP-before-SMTP and both are supported by any
decent MUA. I agree POP-before-SMTP was not a good plan but it worked before
the SMTP AUTH mechanism came of age. Now there is no logical reason not to
use it. Or let me guess you don't authenicate your NNTP server either like
most reputable USENET server admins are doing.
Jeremy T. Bouse
--=20
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---,
|Jeremy T. Bouse, CCNA - UnderGrid Network Services, LLC - www.UnderGrid.n=
et |
| Public PGP/GPG fingerprint and location in headers of message =
|
| If received unsigned (without requesting as such) DO NOT trust it! =
|
| jbouse@Debian.org - NIC Whois: JB5713 - Jeremy.Bouse@UnderGrid.ne=
t |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---'
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7DAS/IcJXVD3J+UYRAqcEAJ9mynNJk9Smzs5czrGrhkepZeOQPgCgwar5
+6a3sfEG8KXW84ta/C/H/SA=
=72A1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--
