[62705] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Sun Sep 21 05:50:29 2003
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels@cistron.nl>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:47:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0309202021530.25380-100000@bubba.numbnuts.net>,
Justin Shore <listuser@numbnuts.net> wrote:
>Now I'm going to get even more off-topic. It occurs to me that major
>changes to a protocol such as SMTP getting auth should justify utilizing a
>different tcp/ip port. Think about it like this. If authenticated forms
>of SMTP used a different TCP/IP port we netadms could justify leaving that
>port open on these same dynamically assigned netblocks in the theory that
>they are only able to connect to other authenticated SMTP services.
>Doesn't that seem logical?
That's not exactly a new idea.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html (december 1998).
Mike.
