At 01:20 PM 5/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>At 07:29 AM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/nsi5.htm
>>>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36116,00.html?tt.yfin.txt.ni
>>>[I typed that last one in -- it's reachable from Yahoo's NSI news]
>>>
>>>Interesting thing is that NSI has been under investigation for some
>>>time.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>>
>>
>>So now all you folks who've said you've been denied a registration
>>for whatever reason and then discover that the very name has suddenly
>>become registered to someone else might bring up that matter as
>>well. I've seen no evidence that NSI is dealing "under the table" as
>>such scenario might suggest, so maybe you should try to find out.
>
>I've just received my fifth request from a potential client to assist him
>in exactly this type of thing. His theory is that someone is packet
>sniffing, not that NSI is doing something illegal. I don't have enough
>information to make a guess.
Time to check out the Fed statutes regarding interception of
communications. If the FBI can track down the Melissa author
(um, with a little help) they certainly ought to be able to identify
who is packet sniffing.
And you are perfectly correct: a packet sniffer could as well be
doing what on the face looks like an NSI activity -- the exception
being that on the premise that party A was turned down by NSI
for name whatever.xxx, how would it be that the packet sniffer
was able to get it?
(You be Scully and I'll be Mulder, okay?) :-)
Bill Lovell
