[67692] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Don Gould)
Tue Feb 17 16:17:25 2004
Reply-To: <don@bowenvale.co.nz>
From: "Don Gould" <don@bowenvale.co.nz>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:08:25 +1300
In-Reply-To: <20040217205023.1B1CD7B43@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> In message <20040217201751.5B25F5DDEA@segue.merit.edu>, "Tony Hain"
writes:
> >The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary
> interactions where new
> >applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally
> controlled model
> >would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
> >deployed. If there are any operators out there who still
> understand the
> >value in allowing the next generation of applications to
> incubate, you need
> >to push back on this tendency to limit the Internet to an
> 'approved' list of
> >ports and service models.
>
> Thank you. You've got it exactly right.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
I also agree.
The RFC for mail was very well designed. If people simply stuck to the
orginal RFC (~800 something) and managed more of their own small systems
then this spam thing just wouldn't be the problem that it has become...
would it?
Cheers Don
