David Brodbeck [gull(_at_)gull(_dot_)us] wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, John Warren wrote:
It's time that the US government force all ISP to block any of their
customers from using port 25 unless they request it for their own mail
server. To get that port 25 access they would have to agree that the
ISP could test their server any time they want. [...]
It would only help in any big way if we invaded Korea.
I'm a bit reluctant to suggest more government regulation of the
Internet; government regulation of communications rarely strikes me as
a good idea. I think if you were going to start mandating port
blocking, though, port 137 would be a good places to start.
NO, to both of you! Forget that port blocking through legislation idea
immediately. Where would it end? Port 26000 (Quake)? Port 443 (HTTPS)?
Imagine every lobbyist group pressing the governments to mandate blocking their
own favorite unfavorite port. Blocking ports through legislation is a
wonderful means of censorship. Only over my dead body.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com