The problem with such heavy-handed blockage is, if he uses hotmail, it also
blocks all other users of that service. This is exclusionary in the
extreme...equivalent of tossing out babies with old bathwater.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Roeland Meyer; Roeland Meyer; Esther Dyson (E-mail); E-mail;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] List security and vindication.
>
>
>
> On 10-Nov-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > Last year, when we found out about the huge hole in the
> security of IFWP
> > list, I tried to convince folks that we needed tighter
> authentication
> > mechanisms. This was not only ignored, but ridiculed by
> some, in private
> > e-mail to me. Notably, William Walsh was most aggressively
> vocal in his
> > objections.
>
> And i would still object to your implementation. However, I
> see no problem
> with being able to eliminate this problem by simply banning
> that IP block from
> sending messages to the dnso mail server. They have abused
> the privelege.
>
> > I think that my point has been proved.
>
> Sorry, Roland, but I don't agree here. The problem is much
> more easily
> resolved. Sure he can go use some free email service, and it
> can be blocked as
> well. Eventually he will tire of it and go away. There is
> no reason to
> subject other list participants to an overly intrusive
> process just to deal
> with this type of slime.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
