[lug] open port

[rise]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Peter Hutnick wrote:

> You aren't the only one who read me this way.  Maybe it isn't common
> knowledge that some admins trust idnet's replies (from both unknown and
> trusted servers) to make security decisions.  Maybe the confusion is that
> your guys have a level of faith in your fellow admins (and remember everyone
> with a 386+ is potentially a UNIX admin these days) that makes you skeptical
> of this.  ;-)

Argh, idealism strikes again!

I think we were talking past each other: I was working from the axiom that
using ident for authentication was a Darwinian self-correcting trait and
you were trying to make sure that everybody understood that manifesting
said trait wasn't pro-survival.  I'm not sure whether that makes you more
idealistic than I[0], but you're certainly closer to the original
question.

I think the archetypical protocol for this kind of discussion is (X)NTP -
eminently useful, an "obvious" win, and historically dangerous in the
extreme.

[0] For even thinking that you can save people from painful experience. :)

- -- 
Jonathan Conway						      rise at knavery.net
history is paling & my surge protection failed, & so I FRIED
						- Concrete Blonde, "Fried"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/

iD4DBQE8pWarx9v8xy9f0yoRAh1kAJ4nkg1ZyWybdqNhpDP7uSkl4BlAsQCXZxPo
Zq4pFXbLWe4lb/p8DFT+Zg==
=q3TE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----