Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:29:39 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) To: Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com>, njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart), jbryant@unix.tfs.net Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Fwd: Secure Ping 1.0] Message-ID: <E0ykEuh-0004oj-00@oak71.doc.ic.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com> "Re: [Fwd: Secure Ping 1.0]" (Jun 11, 1:28pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 11, 1:28pm, Jamie Lawrence wrote: } Subject: Re: [Fwd: Secure Ping 1.0] > At 09:19 PM 6/11/98 +0100, Niall Smart wrote: > > >Well, this exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, except I make it > >more flexible, for example it would nice to be able to specify "allow > >8 megabytes outgoing traffic per day, a peak of 4 megabytes per hour, > >and a limit of 2 megabytes per day to any given host except xyz.com". > > I don't think it would do much of anything to curb nasty practices > on the net, except for limiting the relatively unsophisticated types > who, say, use flood.c against spam sites and quake servers. > > Exactly the type of user I tend to use a rather more course grained > resource limit on, and kick them off my system. :) Yes, resource limitation is no panacea, the main goal of the idea is for ISP's to ration bandwith among their customers, and secondly to stop these kind of idiots from doing too much damage before you boot them off. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0ykEuh-0004oj-00>