nanog mailing list archives
Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Reply-To:
From: Patrick <nanog () haller ws>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:53:22 +0800
On 2013-03-15 06:44, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, it was "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept."
Maybe you're thinking of another time/place, I was referring to:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc761
Current thread:
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work, (continued)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Owen DeLong (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jay Ashworth (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugen Leitl (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Patrick (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Owen DeLong (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Reply-To: Patrick (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jimmy Hess (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jay Ashworth (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work David Walker (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugen Leitl (Mar 19)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Dobbins, Roland (Mar 19)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Owen DeLong (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugeniu Patrascu (Mar 17)