Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]]

From: Fridrik Skulason <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:18 +0000

> In the case you cite, the recipients gain two advantages over the current 
> situation: they have soemone to hold accountable, and that someone has an 
> interest in cooperating.

In an ideal world, yes.  In practice this may be somewhat more difficult
than you expect.  Consider the following: anyone who "allows" his machine
to be compromised in the first place might simply not consider security
to be high priority, and may not respond to a notification that his
system is compromised by closing the security hole.

This is getting somewhat off-topic as far as the LMAP protocol is
concerned, though.

-- 
Fridrik Skulason   Frisk Software International   phone: +354-540-7400
Author of F-PROT   E-mail: [email-masked]       fax:   +354-540-7401

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:06 -0500

> system is compromised by closing the security hole.

  Then you add them to a blacklist based on domain names.

  Problems in one area of the network should not affect other,
well-behaved, areas of the network.

  Alan DeKok.