On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:47:00 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On 12-sep-2005, at 2:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amazingly enough, the *single* biggest problem in trying to get Joe
Sixpack to secure their systems is But I don't have anything
they'd be interested in...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Henry Linneweh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I would like some professional expert opinion to
give her on this issue since it will effect the
copyright inducement bill. Real benefits for
production and professional usage of this technology.
In my
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:31:12 -0400, Jeff Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
p2p is different due to its decentralization. in other words, what
once required a server to do can now be done by anyone sitting in
front of their home computer. it in a way revitalized the idea of
every computer
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I recall even seeing posts about people claiming this meant original data
being reconstructed from the checksum! That would be truly amazing since I
could reconstruct a 680MB ISO from just
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:12:46 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But how are you going to infect a million boxes if you can
only scan one address per second?
With a random scanning worm, the expected time could be as low as
about a day.
Assuming the random scanning model
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:25:14 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On vrijdag, aug 15, 2003, at 23:58 Europe/Amsterdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Amount of energy generated must be balanced with the amount of
energy used
at any time. Otherwise Bad Things (tm) will
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:43:42 +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dialup users and get away with it, but that person was VERY busy.
that ratio only works if the rest of the system is designed to repel
the professional spammers, [[SNIP]], and instant termination even at
4AM on sunday
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications;
on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not
settle for the movie starts every 15 minutes when they've been used
to live VOD with unicast. The only saving
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
party X feels that party Y is gaining more
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any given
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:22:56 PDT, Bruce Williams said:
better than geo based models. Possibly a dynamic public/private key - the
host provides part, the routers adds a wrapper of based on it's public key,
and routes based on a dynamic
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Patrick Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am looking for any and all research (and perhaps your
comments), references, etc. regarding replacements for the
TCP/IP protocol that do not require centralized authority
structures (central
13 matches
Mail list logo
