In a message dated: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:28 CST
Thomas Charron said:
>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> > So they shouldnt filter netbios broadcast traffic either, right?
>> It's not
>> >in the TOS..
>>
>> This argument is a distraction for the sake of argument. The entire
>> discussion thus far has been about filtering the legitimate use of a
>> sanctioned protocol used by responsible people. Throwing in an
>> argument about the result of stupid people (whether they know better or
>> not) does nothing to furthur the discussion.
>
>Woah. How is one protocol use different then another?
>
It's not the protocol that matters, it's the use scenario.
We've been discussing using a single, user-initiated, protocol to
make sporatic connections to remote servers. The argument thus far,
has been about whether or not it is acceptable to prevent this action
given that the TOS states you can't run a server.
In you're argument, you're clearly putting forth that because the TOS
does not specifically mention netbios, then it must be wrong to
filter netbios broadcasts. This is a bogus argument IMO, because:
a. broadcasts have no place on a wan
b. netbios is not a wan protocol
c. netbios broadcasts are usually the result of
people doing things without understanding how
to accomplish the same task in a better manner.
>Please, elaborate. Now I feel profiled. :-) I use samba quite often..
And, correctly configured, Samba doesn't fill the network with
broadcasts. Please provide a legitimate use of broadcasting
over a WAN (which can't be done if the routers are properly
configured).
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
