End-to-End vision. Is it visionary ?

["Jiwoong Lee" <porce at ktf.com>]

First I have to confess that I have no intention to criticize someones'
opinions or views. In fact I technically trust them and sometimes admire
their valuable insights.

Today I experienced pop3 service cutoff. I have several pop3 mail servers in
the worldwide Internet and I use them anytime anywhere. Same thing happens
inside my company. As of 8 December, the network administrators of my
company blocked port number 110. From inside my company it was impossible to
retrieve my emails from pop3 servers, which are located outside my company.

I called those bad guys (network administrators) and claimed on revocation
of blocking. I questioned one of them as to who made that regulation.

Their answer was quite simple; they don't have any shield protecting the
Intranet from the email viruses attached on emails.

On hearing of this answer, I inquired into the truthfulness of this
statement. One virus expert (not network) answered in the same way; he has
SMTP vaccine server, but has no means to remove attached email viruses
delivered by pop3. He suggested to me a relay server, which is a proxy
variant. Using relay server, the pop3 - deliverying viruses can be detected
and removed, he said. (of course!)

I don't know whether any company sells a good solution for pop3 virus
detection. Perhaps there are many logically possible ways to solve pop3
virus problem. It may conform to RFCs.

For all those possibilities, what I realize and what I've been shocked at is
the fact that the network administrators are willingly about to block the
pure Internet service or block the end-to-end service (if this company uses
relay servers or something like that.). They perfer NAT or NAPT for security
reasons. They opened 80 as default, and thanksfully 21, 23, and 25! (Do you
expect more? :< )

Somebody said in this ML; Everything over HTTP, not on IP.

Frankly what I have felt like is that one.

plz share your valulable views.

Jiwoong