nanog mailing list archives

Re: Lazy network operators

From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:35:48 -0400

--On Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:10 AM -0500 "Stewart, William C (Bill),RTSLS" <billstewart () att com> wrote:

or by using a blocking list that blocks the same users.


Unless you're using an AT&T nameserver it seems...

Current thread:

RE: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- RE: Lazy network operators daryl (Apr 14)
  - RE: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Dr. Jeffrey Race (Apr 14)
  - Re: Lazy network operators Daniel Senie (Apr 14)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Apr 14)
  - RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
    - RE: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Apr 14)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS (Apr 15)
  - Re: Lazy network operators John Payne (Apr 15)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Apr 16)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Apr 17)
  - RE: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 17)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 19)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 19)

(Thread continues...)