On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:54:13PM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> Of course we all know that it's impossible to prove a negative, but
> even an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the quality control
> would be appreciated by us all. How? In exactly the same way as the
> virus and worm wri
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:54:13 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:49, you wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:27:33AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > > You don't, you pass laws which forbid the sale of insecure boxes to
> > > consumers, AND pass th
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:49, you wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:27:33AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > You don't, you pass laws which forbid the sale of insecure boxes to
> > consumers, AND pass the liability of costs back to the manufacturer of
> > Grannies insecure o/s.
>
> Who determin
> You don't, you pass laws which forbid the sale of insecure boxes to
consumers,
> AND pass the liability of costs back to the manufacturer of Grannies
insecure o/s.
Not to mention a Global boost in price as manufacturers try to cover thier
ass financially
Cheers
Dale.
I guess an isp has to set filters at a pretty low level, as their
priority must surely to be to let all legit mail through, even at the
expense of some false negatives.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:27:33 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brightmail is a pretty lax filter imho.
>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:27:33AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> You don't, you pass laws which forbid the sale of insecure boxes to
> consumers, AND pass the liability of costs back to the manufacturer of
> Grannies insecure o/s.
Who determines that the operating system and all of the in
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +1200, Jaco Swart wrote:
> This is getting to be an excuse for more than just mandatory spam filtering
> ... are we talking about Paradise here, by any chance?
From: Carl Cerecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maxnet maybe?
Mike.
--
Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:38, you wrote:
> > [ISP]
> >
> > > This should encourage users to extend a more thorough awareness to
> > > such issues, therefore protecting our other customers.
>
> Utterly unfair! Apparently, something like 75% of all PC's connected via
> dailup can be broken into withi
Jaco Swart wrote:
This is getting to be an excuse for more than just mandatory spam filtering
... are we talking about Paradise here, by any chance?
No, not paradise.
Cheers,
Carl.
From: "Carl Cerecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "clug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] liability in ISP terms of service
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 09:08, Carl Cerecke wrote:
&
> [ISP]
> > This should encourage users to extend a more thorough awareness to such
> > issues, therefore protecting our other customers.
Utterly unfair! Apparently, something like 75% of all PC's connected via
dailup can be broken into within minutes, and about 20% allow you map its
harddriv
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 09:58, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> >>My ISP has updated its terms of service. Included is the following
> >>paragraph:
> >>
> >>The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
> >> resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
> >>that involve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 09:08, Carl Cerecke wrote:
Hi,
My ISP has updated its terms of service. Included is the following
paragraph:
The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
that
> The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
> resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
> that involves Customer hardware, software, or network configuration,
> including IP addresses.
>
> Isn't this casting their net a bit wide? Or am I just para
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 09:08, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My ISP has updated its terms of service. Included is the following
> paragraph:
>
> The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
> resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
> that involves C
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 09:08, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My ISP has updated its terms of service. Included is the following
> paragraph:
>
> The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
> resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
> that involves C
Hi,
My ISP has updated its terms of service. Included is the following
paragraph:
The Customer may be liable for all charges and expenses incurred by
resulting from any security breach or attack or customer error
that involves Customer hardware, software, or network configuration,
including
17 matches
Mail list logo
