nanog mailing list archives
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
From: Paul Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:11:32 +0000
i wrote:
see http://www.isc.org/personalcolo/ for the longer version of this rant,
and clearly my espresso hadn't hit yet, because that was wrong. someone said:
Hey Paul, FYI, that link doesn't work. :)
and of course, the real link is <http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/>. sorry!
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 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)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Paul Vixie (May 02)