full-disclosure - [Dshield] Re: Windows Messenger Popup Spam on UDP Port 1026

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20030622013334.GA19696@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
From: petard at sdf.lonestar.org (petard)
Subject: [Dshield]  Re: Windows Messenger Popup Spam on UDP Port 1026

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:41:18PM +0200, Dietmar Goldbeck wrote:
> If ISPs start blocking ports, i would vote for tcp/25.
> People should not be allowed to run smtp servers, unless
> they have proven knowledge in the relevant RFCs. :-))
> 
Please don't suggest such things, even in jest! I am in the process
of switching ISPs right now because the geniuses at mine decided that they
would rather block port 25 in *both* directions at the border than deal
with abusers properly. 

For those that would ask "what harm does using the ISP's mail server cause you
if you are not a spammer?", go read RFC 2487. For one of my mail accounts,
I connect directly to a particular mail server, then use the STARTTLS 
extension along with mutually authenticated SSL, and that is the only way
I can send mail to certain non-public mailing lists.

Why not just make the only commercially available "internet access" go through
their ISP's http proxy? Anyone who wants to send mail can use webmail, 
and anyone who wants encryption is probably evil anyway.

Regards,
petard

-- 
"I say we institute [...] roving squadrons of Darren Reed clones to
bore yuppie scum like this to death with the inherent merits of ipf
over pf."
	-- Anonymous Coward, OpenBSD Journal (http://deadly.org/)