On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:26:54PM -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
...
> When ARPA and MILNET were segmented in 1984, there were
> (Fuzzball-based IIRC) mail gateways between the two networks.
...
I hadn't thought back to that. From what I remember of the intent, and
the little I knew about the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph S D Yao writes
:
>
>On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:09:54PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>I think the mail gateways back when the various networks were being put
>together into an internet had as their functional purpose unifying
>disparate networks. On the cont
Joseph S D Yao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave,
>
> I think the mail gateways back when the various networks were being put
> together into an internet had as their functional purpose unifying
> disparate networks. On the contrary, a firewall has as its purpose
> partitioning a network that
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:09:54PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years.
> >>
> >Make that 15
>
> I suspect that claiming to that they existed farther back than 1990 would
> require careful debate about the functionality.
>
> Taking it
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Roy Badami wrote:
>
> Perhaps because most telnet clients will attempt telnet option
> negotiation?
No they won't. I don't have any copies of BSD to hand from before 1987,
but even then Berkeley Telnet would not do unsolicited option negotiation
if you specified a port number
Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years.
Make that 15
I suspect that claiming to that they existed farther back than 1990 would
require careful debate about the functionality.
Taking it at its most general: a boundary barrier service that mediated
particular
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Roy Badami wrote:
>
> > william(at)elan> Could you elaborate on how firewall will
> > william(at)elan> determine if the connection is from mail server
> > william(at)elan> or from telnet on port 25?
> >
> >Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years.
> >
> Make that 15
Socks, fwtk (before it went commercial) to name a few.
-M<
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam McKenna writes:
>
>On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>> Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
>> established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
>> is Layer 4 if I reme
Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
is Layer 4 if I remember right) and would refuse or reject (d
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
> established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
> is Layer 4 if I remember right) and would refuse or reject (difference
> type o
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Roy Badami wrote:
william(at)elan> Could you elaborate on how firewall will
william(at)elan> determine if the connection is from mail server
william(at)elan> or from telnet on port 25?
Perhaps because most telnet clients will attempt telnet option
negotiation? I
william(at)elan> Could you elaborate on how firewall will
william(at)elan> determine if the connection is from mail server
william(at)elan> or from telnet on port 25?
Perhaps because most telnet clients will attempt telnet option
negotiation? If so one could avoid this by using a cl
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
There is no requirement - even in this century - for MX records. It is
a Good Idea(tm). But not a requirement. Lack of MX records does NOT
mean that you lose the store-and-forward capability of SMTP. Lack of a
secondary server, while equally not a
14 matches
Mail list logo
