But if they are just injection points, not passthrough sites, then I
guess news administrators can easily and safely alias them out.
On the other hand, there might indeed be some justified reason for them
to keep the NNTP port open. However, are they willing to provide which
site injected the forged cancels?
In my eyes, if in*.uu.net refuses to close the open server, and they also
refuses to provide the information about where the forged cancels are
injected, then we can simply treat them as the originators of the forged
cancels.
===========================================================
Forwarded message:
> From FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com Sat Nov 16 12:01 PST 1996
> Message-Id: <199611161942.MAA25453@slug.swcp.com>
> Subject: Re: FAQ cancellations. (fwd)
> To: faq-maintainers@consensus.com (FAQ-Maintainers)
> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:42:02 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Taki Kogoma" <quirk@swcp.com>
> Sender: FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com
>
> Chris Lewis supposedly composed:
> > On Nov 15, 23:37, Tung-chiang Yang wrote:
> > } (1) whether it is possible to alias out the alleged problematic UUnet
> > } site. At least, are news administrators able to ignore cancel
> > } commands sent out through that UUnet site?
> >
> > I have serious doubts whether aliasing out uunet would be a good idea.
> > UUNET is simply too ubiquitous a passthru site.
>
> What about the in*.uu.net injection points? I haven't done any path
> analysis, so the question is whether or not these machines serve as
> regular transport links.
-- Tung-chiang Yang tcyang@ee.ucla.edu Dept. of Electrical Engineering, UCLA, USA Nov 16, 1996
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved