nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () att net il>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:07:05 +0200
At 05:05 PM 28-02-03 -0500, Len Rose wrote:
Scanning is always a precursor to an attack, or to determine if any obvious methodology can be used to attack. At least that's how it has been historically viewed.
When buying from Landsend or Amazon, I normally trust their ecommerce security. But when I am buying something online from "Bubba's Lasermax Imporium" in Nebraska, I will scan their site as well as "Dwyne's Glock Shop" in Arkansas and pick the one with the more secure ecommerce rather than the one with the cheaper price.
Call me Joe consumer :-) -Hank
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse up (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Hank Nussbacher (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Mar 03)