|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lazy network operators
On 14-apr-04, at 17:45, JC Dill wrote: I understand your frustration, but the approach of blocking port 25 isn't the right one. It may be convenient for you, but ... Dood, this *exact* argument was made ~10 years ago against closing open relays. So, do you think that everyone should just open their servers to relaying for anyone, since closing all the open relays has proven to be inconvenient for some, and not a 100% effective solution?Hm... "If you go faster than 30 km/h in a train the air will be sucked out and everyone inside will suffocate" vs "if you fly through the stratosphere in an airplane without a closed cabin the air will be sucked out and everyone inside will suffocate". So just because the former turned out incorrect the latter is as well? Now one could view a typical Windows box behind a broadband connection to be functionally equivalent to an open relay, in which case "closing the relay" would make sense, as open relays allow malicious third parties to unload their garbage upon the net with little recourse. However, filtering TCP port 25 is bad not just because it is massively inconvenient for many people (ever work in support?) but also because this is fixing an application layer problem at the transport layer, which is bad both architecturally and performance wise. (And yes, all those CPU or ASIC cycles inspecting every single packet, including the 99% that aren't email in the first place, cost real power that causes real CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, etc...) If despite this, filtering port 25 would actually have a decent chance of helping us get rid of spam, maybe, just maybe we should consider it. But as I've said before: spam was there when Windows was too stupid to even be vulnerable to anything coming in from the net, and the likeliness of global cooperation within a reasonable timeframe is close to zero anyway. p.s. Please do not cc me on replies to the list. Please reply to the list only, or to me only (as you prefer) but not to both.Maybe the list should add a reply-to? Or am I starting another flamewar here?
|