10 Aug
2008
10 Aug
'08
2:58 p.m.
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.