nanog mailing list archives
Re: tor
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:04:11 +0530
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian () creative net au> wrote:
Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier status."
You do realize that even where the telco division of carrier X is a common carrier but the ISP division is typically not .. And even were the telco to run a tor node, their charter as a common carrier probably doesnt specify that theyre a common carrier for tor nodes. so ... -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)
Current thread:
- Re: tor, (continued)
- Re: tor Brandon Galbraith (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Adrian Chadd (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Adrian Chadd (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: common carriers, was tor John Levine (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Jack Bates (Jun 25)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Jamon Camisso (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Steve Pirk (Jun 24)
- Re: tor nancyp (Jun 25)
- Message not available
- Re: common carier nancyp (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Randy Bush (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Charles Wyble (Jun 24)