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 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 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)