On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Pop quiz, bonus round: how much does it cost Comcast to defend its
mail servers from Verizon's spam, and vice versa? Heck, how much
does it cost Comcast to defend its mail servers from its own spam?
How much do they spend on abuse/customer security?
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:04:13PM +, Simon Waters wrote:
I simply don't believe the higher figures bandied about in the discussion for
compromised hosts. Certainly Microsoft's malware team report a high level of
trojans around, but they include things like the Jar files downloaded onto
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Hi Rich,
snip good stuff thanks for your input, Rich. As always, quite
interesting.
BTW #2: All of this leaves open an important and likely-unanswerable
question: how many systems are compromised but not as yet manifesting
any external sign of it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And this is before we get into the academic off-topic discussion of what a
bot actually is, which after almost 11 years of dealing with these I find
difficult to define. Is it an IP address? A computer?
I really don't want to get into an OS debate here, but this does
have major operational impact, so I will anyway but will be as
brief as possible. Please see second (whitespace-separated) section
for some sample hijacked system statistics which may or may not
reflect overall network population.
But suppose you put such a firewall in place. You'll need to
configure the firewall properly -- paying as much attention to
outbound rules as inbound.
Sounds like a good thing to document in a best practices document that
can be used to certify firewall implementations. When trying to solve
On Monday 19 February 2007 13:27, you wrote:
people consider this to be a Windows malware problem. I consider it to
be an email architecture problem. We all know that you need hierarchy to
scale networks and I submit that any email architecture without
hierarchy is broken by design and no
On Feb 19, 2007, at 6:04 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
I look forward to your paper on the end to end concept, and why it
doesn't
apply to email
The end-to-end principle has no bearing upon this discussion at all,
unless you're referring to firewalls/NATs.
I look forward to your paper on the end to end concept, and
why it doesn't
apply to email ;)
Clearly the answer is that it never has applied to email in the pasts.
Hosts don't email each other, people do. People have always relied on
Internet postmaster services to enable Internet email.
I look forward to your paper on the end to end concept, and
why it doesn't
apply to email ;)
I think the problem here is that people invoke something they think
of as 'the end-to-end principle', but actually isn't.
from http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, even those people have shifted to a hierarchical architecture of
instant-messaging servers.
In what way is IM hierarchial? The commercial IM systems have a star
topology with a tightly controlled core and basically no inter-domain
federation,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you'll need to de-install IE and Outlook,
This will not happen. Not even remotely.
Thus ensuring that Firefox/Thunderbird will be the main target of the
malware people. Is this necessarily any better? Note that Windows
provides an extensive series of
Now, even those people have shifted to a hierarchical
architecture of
instant-messaging servers.
In what way is IM hierarchial?
Jabber/XMPP has a mesh-of-stars topology
That is hierarchy. One level is a star topology, the next level is a
mesh.
which is the same as email's
modulo
13 matches
Mail list logo
