nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: Len Rose <len () netsys com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:20:19 -0500
Hi, Why is it clearly untrue? Remember when researchers used to send announcements out beforehand? I do. Well, you're taking me too literally of course! Len On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:00:25PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
Scanning is always a precursor to an attackthis is clearly not true, as scans are done for research and other goals. and conversely, all attacks are not preceded by scanning. randy
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse, (continued)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Dan Hollis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David G. Andersen (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Rob Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse E.B. Dreger (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Roy (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Feb 28)