nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
And, incidentally, I do consider this a false positive. If any average person might be tripped up by it, and we certainly have a lot of average users on IRC, then it's bad. So, the answer is, "at least one false positive."
The only way any human activity will NEVER have a single false positive, i.e. mistake, is by never doing anything.
Do people really want ISPs not to do anything?
Current thread:
- Re: Port 587 vs. 25 [was: DNS Hijacking by Cox], (continued)
- Re: Port 587 vs. 25 [was: DNS Hijacking by Cox] Jeroen Wunnink (Jul 23)
- Re: Port 587 vs. 25 [was: DNS Hijacking by Cox] Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 23)
- Re: Port 587 vs. 25 [was: DNS Hijacking by Cox] Jeroen Wunnink (Jul 23)
- Re: Port 587 vs. 25 Florian Weimer (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Niels Bakker (Jul 22)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox David Conrad (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Joe Greco (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Sean Donelan (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Joe Greco (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Sean Donelan (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Joe Greco (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Sean Donelan (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Andrew Matthews (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Steven Haigh (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Joe Greco (Jul 23)
- Re: DNS Hijacking by Cox Chris L. Morrow (Jul 24)