6 comments

• 

  Ned Ulbricht

  3 years ago

  In a certain sense, this reminds me of the old arguments for and against closing promiscuously open email relays. The chief difference I see is that open wireless access points don't have a multiplier effect like (E)SMTP relay does. Without an amplifying factor, there doesn't seem to be a similar detrimental impact on global system stability.

  
  

  Further, in a world of global ip connectivity there really isn't much of a case favoring (non-abusive) third-party email relay. Contrariwise, increased ip connectivity sounds like a general good.
• 

  Tim

  3 years ago

  Right, with SMTP, the problem is that the whole world is your neighbor, so even if only one in a million people is up to something bad, that still leaves several hundred people who could do bad things with your open relay.
  
  In contrast, I only have half a dozen neighbors, so the odds that one of them will do something really bad with my Internet connection is very small.
• 

  Ned Ulbricht

  3 years ago

  Hmmm...

  
  

  That isn't quite the "amplification" argument I was making. With SMTP relay, a single incoming transaction with multiple RCPT TO addresses (3.3; p.15) can result in multiple outgoing sessions.
• 

  Tim

  3 years ago

  Oh, that's another important difference.
• 

  Peter

  3 years ago

  Okay, let me get this straight:
  
  It's okay to FORCE people to pay for wireless all over with a taxpayer funded wi-fi, but....
  

  
  ...it's NOT OKAY for people to SHARE their wi-fi on personal expense?
  
• 

  Shawn

  3 years ago

  You guys are letting the small details obscure the big picture..... Big dollar computing companies never want you to have anything for FREE, henceforth the media bias of piggybackers portrayed as thieves.
  
  If computer users start getting stuff for free, then people that drive BMW's and Escalades might have to drive more sensible vehicles like the rest of us.