boring virus emails
i supose hacKinG does not include the 'to be B0Ring' package by default.
why do we still have virus messages on the mailing lisT?
freedom ends when it reachs the freedom of other - this limit can be the
reference to take some action or not. i think we should 'patch' this kind of
email garbage.
email with virus may be reaching ietf two ways:
1. email generated with fictitious source - action that can be taken:
* check the source IP address;
* write email to network admin;
* if no result available in short time - deny the entire ip class on the
edge router immediatelly before ietf SMTP servers.
2. email sent by someone infected with 'auto-spread' virus:
* contact the user and advice about action to be taken.
my mouse would be happy if i don't have to click it such amount of times
without any life consistent purpose.
thank you
j0rge card0sO
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Terça-feira, 31 de Julho de 2001 13:35
To: H. Szumovski (via secureshell)
Cc: Theodore Tso; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Mark Durham
Subject: Re: Any value in this list ?
Therefore I still say: this is NOT Microsofts fault
so what you are saying is that it's the job of the network to not
deliver any content to you that you don't want to see, and for the
network to somehow figure that out in advance, so that you're never
inconvenienced? no matter how much trash other network sites send
your way?
(this list being a special case of "the network")
presumably the network should also accomodate everyone else's
desires for filtering also, all at the same time?
and presumably you're also willing to tolerate the network making
incorrect decisions, say 10% of the time, and either inappropriately
blocking or inappropriately admitting a message that you don't want to see?
and you're willing to accept the amount of complexity/state that must
be absorbed by the network, and the corresponding loss of reliability
and scalability, and the increase in operational cost?
and you're willing to have the network shoulder this responsibility
no matter how poorly the software at the endpoints is written, and
no matter how vulnerable it is to attack by miscreants?
seems to me that it's attitudes like that that produce products like
the SMTP firewall that currently sits in front of odin.ietf.org
(and counteless other SMTP servers) which prevents SMTP from working
properly. separation of function, scalability, reliability, and
proper operation be dammed - what's most important is that no garbage
get through.
the end-to-end argument is completely discarded because we have no
way of forcing Microsoft to produce reliable software or to accept
responsibility for its negligence.
Keith
hmmm. maybe the snail-mail service's mail sorters could automatically
detect and discard junk mail. and maybe the phone network could
altomatically detect telemarketers and electrocute them...
it does have a certain appeal to it.