begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:23:42PM -0700: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:43:36PM -0700, Rachel Garrett wrote: > > Robertson was the one who chose to make it "not" by giving a public > > demonstration, wasn't he? > > Could I make the argument that in a community (like the internet) that > we are all negatively affected by machines that are easy targets for > spammers? Good network neighbors!
> I think people have a responsibility to keep the internet relatively > uncluttered, and Robertson (did I get that right?) not only isn't living > up to that, he's being arrogant about his failure to do so. Compromising a user account doesn't keep you from making outgoing network connections, such as to port 25 of some poor MX machine. So root/non-root doesn't have that much of an effect either way, as I understand it. I kinda dealt with this when I talked about filtering on source ports. If we choose to discard SMTP connections that originate on a port < 1024 then we have a quick argument for root/non-root distinctions. But we no longer consider that sort of filtering a good thing. So that's _that_ argument against it out. -Stewart "`Don't teach people bad habits` isn't much of an argument." Stremler
pgpg0ugTsiQ1g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
