In a message dated: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:52:28 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
>> My point, however, is that it's still acting as a transport for insecure
>> protocols -- instead of having to set up VPNs or SSH, dammit, FIX THE
>> PROTOCOLS.
>
> I disagree. Why should every implementor of every protocol have to worry
>about authentication, encryption, and so on? Why should we go back and modify
>the billions of lines of existing code to support some new security scheme?
>Why should every implementor have to maintain that security layer? Why should
>administrators have to worry about different keys, options, and so on, for
>every possible protocol?
Why? Because maybe if we all just agreed to something
we know will never happen anyway will put an end this thread!
Geez, talk about beating a dead horse? This one is already ground up and
ready for the Purina factory!
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
