Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:27:53 -0500 From: Bill Horne <[hidden email]> > Of course the spam argument doesn't really apply to blocking > inbound port 25. Seen from the perspective of a network manager, it _does_ apply: there are thousands of business and home users whose machines are set up to receive email on port 25 by default, and when those uses get spam, they call Comcast and complain. If blocking inbound traffic to port 25 avoids paying for a staff to handle those complaints, then the manager's choice is simple. My own guess is that the large majority of residential customers, if they were aware of all the arguments, would enthusiastically *support* blocking port 25 inbound. In addition to this issue, look at the number of remotely exploitable security holes in Windows that don't require the user to connect to a malicious web site (various RPC holes and such). I don't know whether Windows systems by default have an SMTP listener, but it would hardly be surprising if there were an attack vector available through that mechanism. Not to mention that receiving traffic on port 25 might just consume a non-trivial amount of bandwidth... -- Robert Krawitz <[hidden email]> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [hidden email] Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |