🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.191748.11505@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
> First of all it seems like not many sites are running RFC 931 type
> code.

In June 1992, about 1 packet out of every 7000 across the NSFNET T1
backbone was for port 113 (auth). For comparison, about 20 packets out
of every 7000 were for port 79 (finger). Only thirty named ports had
higher packet counts than port 113. See nic.merit.edu.

Not bad for a protocol which was barely used before last year.

Look, RFC 931 isn't perfect, but it's trivial to get running and it
takes the edge off of annoyance attacks like ``telnet yourhost 25''.
If you run a multiuser machine and you don't want your users to be
anonymous, try RFC 931. Suppose someone from dockmaster.ncsc.mil calls
you and tells you that one of your users was attacking that machine;
wouldn't you like to find out which user it was?

Contact rfc931-users-request@kramden.acf.nyu.edu to subscribe to the
rfc931-users list. Or poke around in ftp.lysator.liu.se:pub/tap.

---Dan