Lazy network operators

Wed Apr 14 20:24:53 UTC 2004

On 14-apr-04, at 21:16, JC Dill wrote:

>> However, filtering TCP port 25 is bad not just because it is 
>> massively inconvenient for many people (ever work in support?)

> Simply put, I do not agree with your assertion here.

And you conveniently left out all the more important ones again. I 
guess you must be right then.

> We need to stop whining that it's "hard" or "expensive" do to the 
> right thing and close loopholes that are abused by spammers.  It's 
> much harder and more expensive long term to NOT do the right thing.

Ok, speaking as someone who operates networks right now (I only run a 
mail server for one user: myself): if you application types can't make 
your protocols and implementations do what you want: tough. That's your 
problem. I'm not about to change the network to accommodate you. There 
are (potentially) 255 other protocols in IP and 65535 other ports in 
TCP, what if they all want special handling? Forget it. But feel free 
to come back and complain again when the percentage of network traffic 
for your protocol reaches double digits.