Hello Carl Fink,
Once you wrote about "Re: Fw: Re: Cool info i found":
CF> > No, because then we'd be disrupting any innocent bystandards. Get me a
CF> > list of any admins for gmx and it's hosting services. I'll have a talk
CF> > with them.
CF> Not
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 06:51:49AM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> No, because then we'd be disrupting any innocent bystandards. Get me a
> list of any admins for gmx and it's hosting services. I'll have a talk
> with them.
Note that a DOS attack on the actual sender would be illegal in this
No, because then we'd be disrupting any innocent bystandards. Get me a
list of any admins for gmx and it's hosting services. I'll have a talk
with them.
Thus spake ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> gmx.net isn't pingable but ecrc.de, one of its nameservers is. if all of
> us devote enough resources t
gmx.net isn't pingable but ecrc.de, one of its nameservers is. if all of
us devote enough resources to the cause, ecrc.de can be reduced to
redundance. how about it? arguments against?
peace
5 matches
Mail list logo
