On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It would be important to make this a list of legitimate SMTP hosts
only, and NOT a list of non-spammers, as the former can be determined
through technical means (1) and the latter is open to endless debate.
(As we can see with pretty much all
Randy Bush wrote:
We need one (or more) of the p2p vendors to support it.
ask not what X can do for you, but what you can do for X.
i.e., what does ipv6 do for the p2p vendors?
More direct connections between the peers, instead of taking detours
through the pull mode internet where you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-18, at 04.48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
That's quite an assumption there.
- - kurtis -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-18, at 01.10, Paul Jakma wrote:
Hmmm, or rather, there just wont be any demand for IPv6 deployment,
at least from the edges (consumers, small/medium networks). Why
bother changing if, despite the (almost indefinitely) availability of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As co-chair of the multi6 WG :
On 2004-04-19, at 02.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
attractive
at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
years
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
attractive
at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
years
is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on
things
like multihoming
Doug White writes:
It would be nearly impossible for computer software makers to provide
against any type of attack by those so inclined. The result is that
they are reactive rather than pro-active.
That's not the point. The difference in degree of security between
Windows and Mac OS X is
Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its heading, we need to
think globally when suggesting solutions. You'll never get any sort of
licensing globally nor will you EVER get end users (globally) educated
enough to stop doing the things that they do which allow these events to
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:21:02 -0500 (CDT), Adi Linden wrote:
Since many gateway service providers will not prevent insufficiently
skilled users from connecting to the internet and injuring others, the
only remaining solution, as far as I can see, is cutting connectivity
with those enablers.
As for the specifics of your comments, I could not disagree more, but it
is a philosophy of life that distinguishes our views, not the analysis of
the problem. I believe (like a lot of other New Englanders and even
some from California) that people must assume responsibility for their
[snip]
:
: My argument is that a computer needs to be in a safe state by default. I
: firmly believe that if I buy a brand new box from any reputable vendor
: with a premium operating system of choice I should be able to connect this
: device to a local broadband connection indefinitely. It
Operating systems bundled with a retail computer _should_ be reasonably
secure out of the box.
OS X can be placed on a unprotected internet connection in a unpatched
state and it's default configuration allows it to be patched to current
levels without it being compromised.
On the other hand
on Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 04:33:18PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Maybe a stupid question... But if broadband providers aren't going to do
this, and considering there are way less legitimate SMTP senders than
broadband users, wouldn't it make more sense to whitelist known real SMTP
sources
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:50:34AM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Let's face it -- this shouldn't have to be the ISP's problem.
Microsoft needs to quit rushing out new OS releases without properly
straining them and stress testing to find as many holes as they can.
They need to start
Paul Vixie wrote:
so, we know that a broadband customer netblock operator will not
handle complaints, will not fix the systems that are known to be
running third-hand malware, and that the only recourse against abuse
from those places is blackholing them one (ipv4) /32 at a time, or
blackholing
Henry Yen wrote:
s/most profitable company/convicted (and continuing) OS\browser
monopolist/
Sadly the two are not incompatible it appears. If the rewards of breaking
the law were normally so good, then most of us would be down at the
localbank with a shotgun... actually, given the audience,
We need one (or more) of the p2p vendors to support it.
ask not what X can do for you, but what you can do for X.
i.e., what does ipv6 do for the p2p vendors?
randy
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Matt Hess wrote:
late-night-humor
# Do not allow Windows 9x SMTP connections since they are typically
# a viral worm. Alternately we could limit these OSes to 1 connection each.
block in on $ext_if proto tcp from any os {Windows 95, Windows 98} \
to any port smtp
(was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:50:34AM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Let's face it -- this shouldn't have to be the ISP's problem.
Microsoft needs to quit rushing out new OS releases without properly
straining them and stress testing to find as many holes
On 18-apr-04, at 23:25, Paul Jakma wrote:
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were doing IPv6 right now
we wouldn't have this problem more and more.
Which problem is that? ;)
(and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.)
There are actually problems in networking that don't involve NAT... :-)
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 23:16, Sean Donelan wrote:
When the Morris worm was release, there wasn't a patch available. Since
then essentially every compromised computer has been via a vulnerability
with a patch available or misconfiguration (or usually lack of
configuration).
Key word here is
At Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 06:12:16AM -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
Key word here is essentially. I've been involved with about a half
dozen compromises that have been true zero days. Granted that's less
than ground noise compared to what we are seeing today.
There're a lot more 0-days than that.
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 06:27, Brian Russo wrote:
There're a lot more 0-days than that.
Agreed. My ego has not grown so large as to think I've seen every 0-day.
;-) As I said however, the true number of 0-day is less than ground
noise compared to the number of systems that *could* have remained
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
An uneducated
end user is not something you can fix with a service pack.
A profound point, again highlighting the fact that there
are no technical solutions to this problem. (Though
technical measures to enhance traceability are a big
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, John Curran wrote:
: And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
:
: Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
: customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
: know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay attention
there's no choice at all, really.
Are you suggesting to drop all traffic (which, if widespread would get
attention) or just email?
at the moment i'm proposing just e-mail. but that's only because we should
already be rejecting udp/137 and udp/138 and udp/139 from outside our campuses
and
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and
therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait.
The nice (but sometimes frustrating) thing about IPv6 is that we can
take (in internet time) forever to upgrade. At this point, the most
At Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:22:48AM -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
Agreed. I think part of what makes 0-day easier to hide *is* the raw
quantity of preventable exploits that are taking place. In many ways we
have become numb to compromises so that the first response ends up being
format and
At Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:22:17PM +1000, Gregh wrote:
I would love to know the average age of the list inhabitants.
22
It has been my observation that things which are new become better known
when a generation has grown up, completely, with it and is teaching the next
generation.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dr. Jeffrey Race
Sent: April 19, 2004 9:11 AM
To: Jeffrey Race
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400
On Apr 19, 2004, at 4:10 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
First time user of the net in '87 when CompuServe announced it to
its denizens.
Thank [deity] for Micro$oft or we'd have to get a real job.
I hear this a lot and it is such BS. Does anyone here HONESTLY believe
the computer revolution was
** Reply to message from Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 19 Apr
2004 10:51:18 -0400
As far as mainstream users..
* Software needs to patch itself, users aren't going to do it.
* Software needs to be intuitive, people interact with computers as if
they were doing 'real' things. Things
Firstly, who enforces it? The reason it works with cars is that
the state
(or province for those of us north of the border) effectively says you
can't drive a car without this lovely piece of paper/plastic that
we'll give
you and if we find you driving a car without the lovely piece of
Patches either need to be of a size that a dialup user doesn't have to
be dialed in for 24 hours to download and install them. Or .iso's
should be available for ISP's to download, turn into CD's and
distribute as appropriate. Wouldn't that be nice for a dialup user -
getting Windows Update on a
-- Jeff said --
Patches either need to be of a size that a dialup user doesn't have to
be dialed in for 24 hours to download and install them. Or .iso's
should be available for ISP's to download, turn into CD's and
distribute as appropriate. Wouldn't that be nice for a dialup user -
getting
Patches either need to be of a size that a dialup user doesn't have to
be dialed in for 24 hours to download and install them. Or .iso's
should be available for ISP's to download, turn into CD's and
distribute as appropriate. Wouldn't that be nice for a dialup user -
getting Windows Update on a
** Reply to message from Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon,
19 Apr 2004 13:42:53 -0400
-- Jeff said --
Patches either need to be of a size that a dialup user doesn't have to
be dialed in for 24 hours to download and install them. Or .iso's
should be available for ISP's to download,
]
Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 19, 2004 1:39 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Schwartz
Sent: April 19, 2004 12:57 PM
To: 'Dr. Jeffrey Race'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
Firstly, who enforces
XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
I can burn a CD from ISO in about 5 minutes - how about you?
I'm talking about XP users who haven't even updated as far as SP1.
Win98 users who have never run an update in their life...
Win2k users are usually the most patched up that I've seen
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet wrote:
** Reply to message from Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon,
19 Apr 2004 13:42:53 -0400
However, awhile ago we tried an idea of sending out E-Mail alerts to
our customers whenever a critical update of Remote execution
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:03:32PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet wrote:
** Reply to message from Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 19 Apr 2004
13:42:53 -0400
[...notification of the...]
average home Dial-Up users who were
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:03:04 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
For example if VIX.COM had SPF records for its domain, other people
could check the SPF records and not send anti-virus bounce messages
when mail didn't originate from VIX.COM SPF listed systems.
Yeah. They could.
Let me know when
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:10:32 EDT, Dr. Jeffrey Race said:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
An uneducated
end user is not something you can fix with a service pack.
A profound point, again highlighting the fact that there
are no technical solutions to this
At 02:27 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote:
I can burn a CD from ISO in about 5 minutes - how about you?
I'm talking about XP users who haven't even updated as far as SP1.
Win98 users who have never run an update in their life...
Win2k users are usually the most patched up that I've seen - because
that
Well, Paul did advance a methodology - blackhole them all grin
If Paul came up with a practical way to fix millions of compromised
computers which didn't involve hiring entire second-world countries
to talk grandma through the process, I think many people would be
interested in talking to
Should ISPs start requiring their users to install Windows XP SP2?
nope. especially since, according to bill gates, linux would have the
same reputation if it was a popular a platform (and therefore a target
of more virii.) now, you could go further, and say if you emit streams
of wierd(*)
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
two things, though: (1) you'll never get those things fixed and (we both
know it), (2) so you'd better prepare for the inevitability of widespread
filtering against your DSL/Cable blocks (whether you talk to me or not.)
Paul, where have you been? There
On 19 Apr 2004 22:16:58 +
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[(*) wierd could mean streams of tcp/syn or tcp/rst, or forged source
addresses, or streams of unanswered udp, or streams of ourbound tcp/25,
or udp/137..139, or who knows what it'll be by this time next month?]
Precisely.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
:
: An uneducated
: end user is not something you can fix with a service pack.
:
: A profound point, again highlighting the fact that there
: are no technical solutions to this problem.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:07:45 -1000 (HST), Scott Weeks wrote:
Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its heading, we need to
think globally when suggesting solutions. You'll never get any sort of
licensing globally nor will you EVER get end users (globally) educated
enough to stop
: Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its heading, we need to
: think globally when suggesting solutions. You'll never get any sort of
: licensing globally nor will you EVER get end users (globally) educated
: enough to stop doing the things that they do which allow these events
- Original Message -
From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:53:45 -1000 (HST), Scott Weeks wrote:
Neither can happen. That's just another way of saying make
all your users
skilled or go out of business.
The SPs whose business model entails externalizing the
costs SHOULD go out of business
Yes.
Unfortunately, one day 1,000,000 users will find in their mail boxes fully
automated CD with 'Microsoft Update' on the label and 1,000 viruses /
trojans inside. -:)
Patches either need to be of a size that a dialup user doesn't have to
be dialed in for 24 hours to download and
I agree.
90% users CAN NOT UPDATE. How?
- (1) updates are too big to be diownloaded by modem , which fail every 20 -
40 minutes (which is common in many countries);
- (2) if you connect to Internet for update, you are infected by virus much
faster than you install update.
I saw it. Home user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Curran) writes:
...
This would suggest that spam is pervasive largely because of the large
number of insecure systems available for origination (via port 25 :-),
not because of providers failing to close barn doors after the fact...
I don't know why it's taken me so
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
MAPS or SORBS or somebody needs to set up a BBL (broad band list) which is
just a list of broadband customer netblocks, with no moral/value judgement
expressed or implied. If it's complete and updated frequently, I'd pay for
a feed because of all the
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side.
Michel, you forgot to include the audio:
http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the
So-called broadband user populations (cable, dsl, fixed wireless, mobile
wireless) are full time connected, or nearly so. They are technically
unsophisticated, on average. The platforms they run trade convenience for
security, and must do so in order to remain competitive/relevant. Margin
Paul Vixie wrote:
So-called broadband user populations (cable, dsl, fixed wireless, mobile
wireless) are full time connected, or nearly so. They are technically
unsophisticated, on average. The platforms they run trade convenience for
security, and must do so in order to remain
--On 18 April 2004 03:48 +0100 Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT extremely badly
(SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix it are costly. So if IPv6
--On 18 April 2004 02:56 -0400 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't want to accept connections from indeterminate or
unauthenticated addresses, its your choice.
Whilst that may gave you some heuristic help, I'm not sure
about the language. HINFO used that way neither
At 10:32 AM +0200 4/18/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay
Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason
why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart
from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers
are asking
I suggested using something like HINFO in the in-addr.arpa address
zones for service providers to give similar information about IP
addresses. Yes, I know, using DNS for yet something else. LDAP or
RWHOIS or any other global mechanism could be used.
more uses for dns is actually a good
... Margin pressure makes it impossible for most broadband service
providers to even catalogue known-defect customer systems or process
complaints about them.
What is the estimated cost per subscriber of such an operation in your
opinion and where should it be to make it feasible?
On Apr 18, 2004, at 4:32 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
address space. I have a /29 at home, which is
Maybe a stupid question... But if broadband providers aren't going to do
this, and considering there are way less legitimate SMTP senders than
broadband users, wouldn't it make more sense to whitelist known real SMTP
sources rather than blacklist all addresses that potentially have a fake
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious
compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give
all my boxes a real address if I turn them all on
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
[...]
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to
migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were doing IPv6 right now we
wouldn't have this problem
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
Spamming exists because spamming works. Why do spammers send
out millions of emails? Because thousands of
Cost transference. The cost of Spam via postal mail is borne by the
sender.
When sent via email, the cost is shouldered by the recipient.
It is not perfect comparation. For both, e-mail and post-mail, recipient
pays the same cost for sorting mail , mail box etc. But, for e-mail, sender
pays
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
Spamming exists because spamming works. Why
On 18 Apr 2004 06:13:35 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
The new motto here is: Blackhole 'em all and let market
forces sort 'em out.
Hooray.
May Comcast rot in hell. They are completely irresponsible.
Don't even send an auto-ignore message.
Jeffrey Race
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:01:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Jerry Eyers wrote:
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
It's flat right. See
Renumbering is much easier.
I like this one.
Now this is a funny one about IPv6.
How is renumbering *any* easier than IPv4? Yes you have autoconf
based on route advertisements/solicits on the client end from the
routers, but how is that any different than IPv4+DHCP?
Is it perhaps b/c IPv6
[consolidated some posts]
Alex Bligh wrote:
As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT
extremely badly (SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix
it are costly. So if IPv6 means I can avoid NAT, that can
actually save $$$.
Likely the market will find some other way, which is
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
I suggested using something like HINFO in the in-addr.arpa address
zones for service providers to give similar information about IP
addresses. Yes, I know, using DNS for yet something else. LDAP or
RWHOIS or any other global mechanism could be used.
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were doing IPv6 right now
we wouldn't have this problem more and more.
Which problem is that? ;)
(and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.)
See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
- Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed.
Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Or ability to do QoS PtP over internet? Or security that is built in and
not part of additional layer?
Perhaps ipv6 has
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Maybe. Given the current stockpiling plus the extension of IPv4 to 32
bits to 48 bits (32 bits+port) that shortage that we have heard for the
last 10 years would happen any time soon might not even
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
Whilst that may gave you some heuristic help, I'm not sure
about the language. HINFO used that way neither /authenticates/
the address (in any meaningful manner as the reverse DNS holder
can put in whatever they like), nor does it /authenticate/ the
Be careful about the slice and dice effect. Depending on how you divide
up the numbers you can make any thing come out on top. In some sense
the problem is a lot worse. Its not just spam, worms, viruses. Its not
just residential broadband users. Its not even just Microsoft Windows.
Lou Katz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
Spamming exists
:
:
:
: Lou Katz wrote:
:
: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
:
: Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to
enforce
: acceptable use policies by the service provider.
:
: I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Doug White wrote:
Well, Paul did advance a methodology - blackhole them all grin
If Paul came up with a practical way to fix millions of compromised
computers which didn't involve hiring entire second-world countries
to talk grandma through the process, I think many people
:
: That's why I keep advocating better ways to identify the specific sources
: of the unwanted traffic, even if they change IP addresses. That way you
: could positively block the infected computers from not only mail but
: anything else you don't want to supply (no more GOOGLE/YAHOO/CNN for
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Doug White wrote:
I likewise would like to see a better way - but changing the whole internet is
completely illogical.
Educating the masses is the same.
As soon as I see a solution that will work, I will probably try to implement it
on my system.
Abbot and Costello do
I haven't seen it mentioned yet but I believe that some may be looking
for something like the lists at: http://www.blackholes.us/ and if it has
been mentioned already I apologize for the duplicate.
Doug White wrote:
:
:
:
: Lou Katz wrote:
:
: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400,
Sean Donelan
Should ISPs start requiring their users to install Windows XP SP2?
Most of those of us that work with m$ products on a daily basis are not
too hot about installing beta code in production. A week after m$
releases it, and after carefully listening to the volume of screams
coming
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should ISPs start requiring their users to install Windows XP SP2?
IMHO:
Not if they want to stay in business. Our customer base is probably
80%Win 9x users. I can't speak for everybody else, but I would be
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real quick.. OpenBSD's pf can
block on OS fingerprints.. effectively doing exactly what you are
kidding about (at least I'd hope so.. well, maybe) even in the man page
example they put:
# Do not allow Windows 9x SMTP connections since
Yes I was being mostly facetious. But as others pointed out-
Micro$not is as much to blame for the spam problem as Road Runner and
CommieCast with their extremely shoddy software. Open proxies, worms,
relays, spyware ad nauseum.
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real
On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse
to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in
v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were
On Apr 18, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Matt Hess wrote:
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real quick.. OpenBSD's pf can
block on OS fingerprints.. effectively doing exactly what you are
kidding about (at least I'd hope so.. well, maybe) even in the man
page example they put:
#
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
The point still stands - without real multi-homing
so I do not have to be dependent upon a single
vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option.
Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even
considered when v6 was being engineered?
Yes, although the magnitude of the problem
I think something like this would be best (safest?) used on collection
mx hosts.. hosts that clients would not connect with to send mail.. just
other servers delivering mail inward.. I personally can't imagine why
someone would want to use a win95/98/Me system as a mta.. so this
probably would
Brandon Shiers wrote:
Let's face it -- this shouldn't have to be the ISP's problem.
Microsoft needs to quit rushing out new OS releases without properly
straining them and stress testing to find as many holes as they can.
They need to start cracking down on themselves and really start
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
