[60149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Blocking port 135?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Irving)
Fri Aug 1 15:58:45 2003
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:54 -0500
From: Richard Irving <rirving@onecall.net>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris@UU.NET>
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.53.0308011921460.693@rampart.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
So, you don't like the smell of fried chicken ?
We keep an old overclocked 486-33, with a quadrupler
around, making it run at about 100mhz.. for just this purpose...
Complete the Chicken ritual, at Midnight, of course.
Unprotect port 25, let alt.freak know...
Route all mail to /dev/null....
Whip the chicken on to the old processor,
and wait till the spam hits....
Fried chicken in 5 minutes or less.
Mmmmmmm.
:D
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
>>In reality blocking port 135 is almost never sufficient. Its slightly
>>better than waving a dead chicken over your PC.
>>
>
>
> its far less stinky than the chicken option though, you must admit that.
