On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Chris Thompson wrote:
> With the new suggested default this means "reject all incoming messages" (an
> extreme isolationist attitude!) rather than "refuse all incoming connections".
Thanks for pointing this case out, Chris. I was thinking "anti-spam" too
much, and forgot there might be times when refusing connections
(possibly temporarily) could be wanted.
Perhaps I should stick with the compatible default (which I have
actually been implementing). I'm now wondering if a single option for
all host-specific rejections is flexible enough. Do we perhaps want two
different host/net lists - one for connection rejection, and one for
message rejection?
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
