nanog mailing list archives
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:12:07 +0530
On 5/2/05, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
Isnt it a much simpler world where simply having rDNS lends the assumption of a supported "static" system as opposed to none?
yup, like ppp-12345.townname.dialup.example.com -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)
Current thread:
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden, (continued)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Valdis . Kletnieks (May 01)
- Message not available
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Valdis . Kletnieks (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Valdis . Kletnieks (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dave Rand (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Mark Andrews (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Paul Vixie (May 02)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Mark Andrews (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Joe Maimon (May 01)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Suresh Ramasubramanian (May 02)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven Champeon (May 02)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Joe Maimon (May 02)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Steven Champeon (May 02)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Valdis . Kletnieks (May 02)