Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0309202021530.25380-100000@bubba.numbnuts.net>, Justin Shore <listuser@numbnuts.net> wrote:

Now I'm going to get even more off-topic. It occurs to me that major changes to a protocol such as SMTP getting auth should justify utilizing a different tcp/ip port. Think about it like this. If authenticated forms of SMTP used a different TCP/IP port we netadms could justify leaving that port open on these same dynamically assigned netblocks in the theory that they are only able to connect to other authenticated SMTP services. Doesn't that seem logical?

That's not exactly a new idea. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html (december 1998). Mike.