Bryan Whitehead wrote: > It's much more simpler than doing a stupid port scan of all your > customers... Agreed, but it is a form of censorship, so will/should attract political interest. Should not any packet addressed to you be delivered to you? As a matter of principle and ethics? But I still think low volume access to these servers should be permitted. -- Regards, Ron. [AU]
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Pixel
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Brian J. Murrell
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Pixel
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Brian J. Murrell
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Sebastian Dransfeld
- Re: [Cooker] ssh John Hoke
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Daniel Woods
- Re: [Cooker] ssh John Hoke
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ron Stodden
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Bryan Whitehead
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ron Stodden
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ben Reser
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ron Stodden
- Re: [Cooker] ssh James Sutherland
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Brian J. Murrell
- Re: [Cooker] ssh James Sutherland
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Brian J. Murrell
- Re: [Cooker] ssh James Sutherland
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ben Reser
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Ron Stodden
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Alexander Skwar
