Frob the Builder wrote:
>> The problem comes when the server a domain points to is the map
>>for several domains, say via Virtual Hosts or selected forwarding. Many servers
>>use this if they're on a dedicated web-hoster, or for subdomains.
>
> Ahah, because the 'physical' server uses the URL to
> This is fine if you assume a one-to-one mapping of the original domain names
to
> IP addresses. The problem comes when the server a domain points to is the map
> for several domains, say via Virtual Hosts or selected forwarding. Many
servers
> use this if they're on a dedicated web-hoster, or
At 08:04 PM 4/4/02 +0100, Graham Lally wrote:
>Hey Frob, all.
>
>Been kicking this concept around my head for a while, but never really
thought
>about it seriously. Interested in taking it further and seeing what can
be done
>with it though. Practical usage aside (a separate issue), here are some
Hey Frob, all.
Been kicking this concept around my head for a while, but never really thought
about it seriously. Interested in taking it further and seeing what can be done
with it though. Practical usage aside (a separate issue), here are some
technical comments...
Frob the Builder wrote:
>
Hmm, SpamAssassin rated your post as somewhat naughty. Should probably
bump up the threshold from default 5 to 6, but you might want to consider
below for your future posts.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Frob the Builder wrote:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
At 02:16 AM 4/3/02 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
>At 05:51 AM 04/02/2002 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>>And Morloch: your replacing DNS (as a vulnerable point of
>>failure/control) is a good idea.
>>you'll have to write a browser plug-in, or background daemon that
>>modifies the resolver's behav
