> > actually, it does (need a bigger posse). > > Rhetoric aside, no it doesn't. > > Choosing not to implement (or permit, as an operational decision) TCP > because of concerns about state is what you go on to talk about; what you > were actually replying to was the wholesale denial of 53/tcp out of > simple ignorance, which I would be surprised to hear you endorse, even if > it happens to coincide on this instance with the results of your > analysis.
not doing tcp/53 because the last guy didn't do it is the first step toward not doing tcp/53 because it's amazingly fragile. sorry to cross the streams without a diagram. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
