On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:50:34PM +1100, Ron Stodden wrote: > 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. Port scan or firewalling. It's all the same. You're saying you don't want ssh because of the port scans. Then you say low volume would be tolerated. Make up your mind. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org Maslow's Maxim: If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail.
- 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
- Re: [Cooker] ssh Leon Brooks
