[67635] in North American Network Operators' Group
Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sun Feb 15 17:35:03 2004
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:33:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <90350106.1076687946@[172.18.60.145]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rob Pickering wrote:
> --On 13 February 2004 09:27 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > Yeeee-Haw! A return to the Old West of bangbaths and pathalias.
> >
> > No thanks.
>
> That's absolutely the issue with emerging resignation to "e-mail
> peering" and the like being the only solution to the spam problem.
The unfortunate fact is lots of people like to operate open, anonymous
services and then expect other people to clean up after them.
Why don't IRC operators require authentication of their users?
ISPs should block 6667
Why don't SMTP operators require authentication of their users?
ISPs should block 25
Why don't NETBIOS operators require authentication of their users?
ISPs should block 135, 137-139, 445
Why don't P2P operators require authentication of their users?
ISPs should block everything
