Re: [exim] RFC 1413 default on debian

Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:23:35 -0500, Wakko Warner <wakko@???>
> wrote:
> >So maybe this doesn't always apply to all circumstances.
>
> Right, it doesn't. For example, a lot of DSL providers configure their
> equipment to not return ICMP host unreachable on an unused IP address.

To me, this would make it harder to determin which hosts are actually there
or not.

> Dropping unwanted packages instead of rejecting them makes sense for
> brain-dead applications like emule/edonkey which don't care anyway,
> but it doesn't give you any security gain. Facing a "no security gain"
> situation, you can as well be a good neighbor and honor the RFCs.

I typically return tcp-rst to packets I don't want mostly. But some places
I don't bother with that. It may make no difference, but I did that so it
would cause their connection to eventually time out instead of being
instantaneous. (Korea comes to mind)

I know my provider doesn't return anything if the host doesn't exist.

--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals