Message-ID: <1145973087.26677.ezmlm@securityfocus.com>
Date: 25 Apr 2006 13:51:27 -0000
From: bugtraq-owner@...urityfocus.com
To: bugtraq@...mane.org
Subject: Returned post for bugtraq@...urityfocus.com

Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
bugtraq@...urityfocus.com mailing list.

I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at bugtraq-owner@...urityfocus.com.

I'm sorry, your message (enclosed) was not accepted by the moderator.
If the moderator has made any comments, they are shown below.

>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>
Good point, but I think this was one of the first points raised in
this thread
<<<<< -------------------- <<<<<

Return-Path: <bugtraq@...mane.org>
Delivered-To: moderator for bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Received: (qmail 22274 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2006 08:56:04 -0000
Received: from mail2.securityfocus.com (205.206.231.1)
  by lists2.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2006 08:56:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 16488 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2006 15:26:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 16484 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2006 15:26:26 -0000
Received: from main.gmane.org (80.91.229.2)
  by mail2.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2006 15:26:26 -0000
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]) by main.gmane.org
          via smtpd (for mail2.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.1]) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:21:02 -0700
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FXKKE-0003R8-LV
	for bugtraq@...urityfocus.com; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:47:10 +0200
Received: from mail.artimi.com ([217.40.213.68])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:47:10 +0200
Received: from davek_throwaway by mail.artimi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:47:10 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
From: "Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" <davek_throwaway@...mail.com>
Subject:  Re: Re[2]: Bypassing ISA Server 2004 with IPv6
Date:  Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:46:58 +0100
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <e2dj5l$bcn$1@....gmane.org>
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604102122350.11673@...lla.de> <C06707F4.2E25%thor@...merofgod.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@....gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.artimi.com
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Sender: news <news@....gmane.org>

Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:

> There was an earlier thread today where a simple list of hostnames
> being filtered from the Win32 HOSTS file was positioned as
> "deliberate sabotage" of our machines by Microsoft; a case of "It's
> my computer- keep your hands off."  Yet here, the integrity of a
> product is being challenged because the application does not prevent
> an administrator from installing and binding protocols at the
> OS-level in cases where the application is not designed to filter
> those protocols?  That is a double-standard at its best.
>
> t

  Well, not on my part it isn't!  I think it's entirely right for ISA server 
not to inhibit unknown-and-future protocols that are outside its domain of 
competence.  Any admin who sets up IPv6 on a network should set up IPv6 
firewalling and not expect their IPv4 firewall to already be blocking it. 
If ISA did block IPv6 you'd have to uninstall it to use IPv6 on the same 
machine.  But the two are orthogonal to each other, and should be configured 
and administered separately.

  I also don't think it's the resolver's job to make policy decisions, as 
you have observed.  :-)  Policy is to be set by admins, and software should 
not restrict our rights to set policy over our own machines.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists