The DDoS problem... handled wrong by the governments?

If I look on the Homepage of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) http://www.nipc.gov/ (part of the FBI), I see there are Advisory's about the diffrent Distributed denial of service tools. But I think the way how its handled is really wrong. Instead of "enforcing" the people who

Request to Join

Good morning, I would like to request to join/sign up for information regarding upcoming audio/videocasts and any other events' announcements you provide. Thank you in advance for your help.  Reply with inquiry if there is more information I need to provide. Betty Lorenz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

> It is also impossible to differentiate between so-called > spam and expressions of a personal political, social or > artistic nature. Herein lies one of the major issues that ought to be sorted out before anyone takes any steps to regulate spam. What is spam, exactly? There seems to be a

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

It's easy to classify SPAM as "junkmail" or UCE but I think that leaves too much to interpretation these days. Especially given the almost completely commercial applications of "the net" (gawd, I hate to even think of Sandra B. and her magic octet). I think the answer could live in what is commo

RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

I would think it fairly evident that spam is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect that a popular resolution would, therefore, need to provide the receiver with control over the type of information allowed through a personal filter. This could be implemented by defining a key field with a

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

At 09:35 PM 6/15/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech >includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people >who want to sell you things. I dunno, Keith. What you are asking for is content control - you are saying

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

Wow, an example of what Keith is asking for ... free speech without having to hear it... I vote for Fred's idea, I was tired of it last week. mike > > At 09:35 PM 6/15/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech > >includes the freedom

RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Book, Robert wrote: > I would think it fairly evident that spam is in the eye of the > beholder. I suspect that a popular resolution would, therefore, need to > provide the receiver with control over the type of information allowed > through a personal filter. This co

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

> >And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech > >includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people > >who want to sell you things. > > I dunno, Keith. What you are asking for is content control - you are saying > that certain content shouldn't g

Best Toner Cartridge Prices Ever

D&J PRINTING CORPORATION 3103 LEXINGTON FARMS DR ALPHARETTA, GA 30004 (770) 619-0716 --LASER, FAX AND COPIER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES-- *WE ACCEPT GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PURCHASE ORDERS* CHECK OUT OUR NEW CARTRIDGE PRICES: APPLE LASER WRITER PRO 600 OR 16/600

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

> actually I'd settle for well-defined mandatory labelling - at the SMTP > level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone. Perhaps a future First Lady Tipper Gore will try to help you out there, as she did for the consumers of recorded music. Around here, we've been warned agai

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

While this may be important enough to have some discusion on the general IETF list, I would point out that there does exist an IETF working group in this area: RUN, Responsible Use of the Net . This working group produced RFC 2635 which was ado

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

Chip Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:35:23PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech > > includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people > > who want to sell you things. > >

Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

> From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > While this may be important enough to have some discusion on the > general IETF list, I would point out that there does exist an IETF > working group in this area: RUN, Responsible Use of the Net >

please remove APNIC from the IETF list

sheesh!--talk about unsolicited garbage. It's bad enough that every message sent to the main IETF lists generates several bounces and vacation messages from the hordes who subscribe to the list and don't know to use their computers (and so have no business subscribing), but this is over the top.

RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Unsolicited bulk or commercial email. Fairly straightforward. Unsolicited, as in you did not ask to receive it. Bulk, as in sent to masses of people, including but not limited to "repent ye sinners" and "fund my charity" or "vote for me." Commerc

WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP

[ Please distribute this as widely as possible, wherever appropriate. ] The WAP Trap An Expose of the Wireless Application Protocol Mohsen Banan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for: Free Protocols Foundation http://www.FreeProtoco