Vince Sabio wrote:
> ** Sometime around 15:06 -0500 02/07/2003, Nick Simicich sent everyone:
> >You know, I have another alert: You might have meant for no one to
> >sign up for this list, but the default is to let people sign up!
> >The most restrictive defaults should be picked in all cases, of
> >course, so the default should be to not let people sign up! And to
> >not let people use the list at all! And to restrict all English
> >words from being in a posting, because if people are allowed to use
> >language in mailing list postings, they could accidentally give away
> I agree with your overall assessment that the "security alert" is
> B.S. However, default settings should be reasonable. For example,
> setting defaults so that no one can sign up for a new list is
> arguably not particularly useful in most cases ; OTOH, defaulting
> which_access to closed/list/private/something-anything other than
> "open" is probably smarter than defaulting it to open.
Agreed, and it's to protect us, other internet users, from the stupidity
of a person running a site badly.
Same thing for open relays, if something ships today as an open mail
relay, then it's brokenware, in my opinion.
True, somebody running a mail server or list manager should RTFM. We
can't force them too though, and if them not paying attention is going
to cause OTHER internet users pain, it's time to reconsider what the
default is gonna be.
Al Iverson -- iverson @
com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota
My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/
Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/
All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise.