On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 07:52:17AM -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG wrote: > > There is a persistent mythos -- a worst practice, actually -- among many > > operations that obfuscating the reasons why messages are rejected is > > useful. > > This is wrong. > > > > Consider: either the sender is benign (as in this case) or they are not. > > > > If they're not benign, then either they don't care enough to acquire > > this information or they do. If they don't care, then providing the > > information doesn't hurt, because it'll be ignored anyway. If they do > > care, then they WILL get it, whether by conducting research or by > > breaching security or by the simpler/cheaper path of paying someone > > on the inside off. > > > > Please post your password to nanog@. Consider: either we're all benign, or > we're not. And if we're not, either we're too lazy to read all the > messages to the list, or we're willing to rubber-hose the password out of > you. Posting your password to the list is the most logical way to avoid > the hose. >
I thought we were all educated people on this ML. Please avoid sophism.
