> What most people participating in this subthread seem to be missing is
that
> if one did decide to send (or accidentally sent) false time to these
D-Link
> devices, NOBODY WOULD EVER KNOW OR CARE. Doing so does not solve any
> problems, so whatever the legal risk of acting is, no matter ho
Steve Sobol wrote:
Alain Hebert wrote:
With the way you named your address book (North American Noise and
Off-topic Gripes).
We now know where to fill your futur comments.
(In the killfile that is)
You don't seem to want to act very responsibly, based on your comments
here,
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
"Steve Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How does one properly report delivery failure to a guerrilla spammer?
If you accept the message, you can presumably deliver it. In this day and
age, anyone accepting mail for a domain without first checking t
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ someone else wrote, but Miquel failed to attribute: ]
.or do you think that TCP/IP connection
should be held open until the message can be scanned for spam and
viruses
From the BBC "Daily news", Technology section:
* Net clocks suffering data deluge *
Home hardware maker D-Link has been accused of denting the net's
ability to tell the time accurately.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/technology/4906138.stm
On 4/13/06, Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From the BBC "Daily news", Technology section:
>
> * Net clocks suffering data deluge *
> Home hardware maker D-Link has been accused of denting the net's
> ability to tell the time accurately.
> Full story:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 03:35:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:28:59 CDT, Bryan Bradsby said:
> >
> > > Silently deleting other people's e-mail should never even be considered.
> >
> > Unless that email is a virus, or a spam with a forged envelope sender.
>
> No, in
Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
[...]
>> .. after content scanning, user1 wants the mail, user2 doesn't. Now what
>> ?
> Gosh gomer, is 2821 not available in Books On Tape format?
Aww, but reading is *hard*!
The simple answer is that RFC
Folks,
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by
blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just
by a different name.
Is anyone in the IANAL field aware of any cases where :
a. an ISP successfully defended a common carrier position
b. an
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by
blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net
Neutrality, just
by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering.
Is anyone in the
That is _such_ a red herring. Semantics. ;-)
Let's just call it Network Inequity. ;-)
- ferg
-- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
> I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by
> blocking ASN's or IP pre
[ In response to Richard A Steenbergen ]
Alain Hebert said:
>
> Well,
>
> With the way you named your address book (North American Noise and
> Off-topic Gripes).
>
> We now know where to fill your futur comments.
> (In the killfile that is)
That Cc: came from my message, and RAS
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it
is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM
To: NANOG list
Cc: Patrick W. Gil
Eric Germann wrote:
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it
is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP)
We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that.
Offlist if you want.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTEC
Google it.
And you're naive to you think its just VoIP anymore.
The whole, nasty, underlying issue with 'network inequity' is
that it is a bubble in its truest sense -- some infrastructure
simply will not support tens of thousands, etc. unicast streams,
AND also support traditional 'best effort'
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> One lost and one won. The reason was that Prodigy monitored its
> content for things like foul language, Compuserve did not. As a
> result, most ISPs after that would very, very intentionally not look
> at what their customers were doing so they c
> I haven't seen any succinct justification for providing a
> 550 message rejection for positively-identified spam versus
> silently dropping the message. Lots of how-to instructions
> but no whys.
>
> matthew black
> california state university, long beach
Because your father may forwar
Alain Hebert wrote:
Its a cultural issue...
I acknowledge that there are cultural differences, but... y'know, two wrongs,
etc.
Its not right versus wrong but amelioration versus status-quo...
It is *both.* DLink is being obnoxious. That doesn't mean being obnoxious
back is the ri
18 matches
Mail list logo
