Simply not true. See the kidnap case that was solved with cooperation
between the Swedish and French police. The kidnapers in France was
extradited to Sweden although they where arrested in France because
they received the ransom there.
Where was the crime commited though? If the
Simply not true. See the kidnap case that was solved with cooperation
between the Swedish and French police. The kidnapers in France was
extradited to Sweden although they where arrested in France because
they received the ransom there.
Where was the crime commited though? If the kidnapping
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How would such a block be enforced...?
Very simple. Someone names him in a lawsuit. A spanish judge issues
subpoena. He ignores it and does not appear in court. The same judge would
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:11 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:59:59 CST, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You don't. If you configure your name server to block resolution of
terrorist.com, you'll never find out that it goes to an Akamai
Who is 'they', Patrick ? Suppose Spain introduces that law. Fine, but
that doesn't mean that other countries have to (or will ever) abide by
that. Certainly in the U.S. you won't find that many who would support
even the idea.
This thread was started 'cause the Spanish (?) government
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How would such a
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How
At 11:20 AM 11/15/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How would such a block be enforced...?
Very simple. Someone names him in a lawsuit. A spanish judge issues
subpoena. He ignores it and does not appear in court. The same judge would
I
Good Morning,
I am interested in how everyone who is affected by the recent Spanish
Judicial order to block specific terrorist affiliated sites from access to
Spanish nationals?
Without re-starting the endless debate over how impossible this is in
fact, since that is obvious -
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:11 PM -0500
-- Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you
where to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it would
make no difference. Although I'm no Akamai expert.
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain
name system is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name,
vice versa. If a user wishes to browse to
http://64.236.16.20
he/she will arrive also at
www.cnn.com.
The domain name is propagated and subsequently refreshed
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:11:14 EST, Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you where
to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it would make no
difference. Although I'm no Akamai expert.
The Akamai gotcha is that if
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:52 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:11:14 EST, Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you
where to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:52 PM +0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain name system
is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name, vice versa. If
a user wishes to browse to http://64.236.16.20
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain name system is
primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name, vice versa. If a
user wishes to browse to http://64.236.16.20 he/she will arrive also at
www.cnn.com.
Remember some servers won't work with IP address,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to which is resolves
on your routers. (Which in many cases will be an Akamai server inside
At 05:28 PM 11/14/2002, Patrick W. Gilmore most definitely
admitted:
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:52 PM
+0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function
of the domain name system
is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain
Once upon a time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to which is resolves
on
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:01 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to
-- On Friday, November 15, 2002 12:45 AM +0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
At 05:28 PM 11/14/2002, Patrick W. Gilmore most definitely admitted:
Suppose they just make it a law that each ISP has to block domain.com
in their caching name servers?
Who is 'they', Patrick
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:59:59 CST, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You don't. If you configure your name server to block resolution of
terrorist.com, you'll never find out that it goes to an Akamai server.
Unfortunately, the politicians would actually believe that.
23 matches
Mail list logo
