Randy Bush wrote:
I.e., layering is, IMO at least, a model. Fine for describing things, but
not necessarily a good blueprint for an implementation.
compilation systems can be constructed which will procuce efficient inlined
code for nicely modularized (layered) source. just not for
Also seems to be a good electric fence - you can cross layers, but very
carefully.
Randy Bush wrote:
I.e., layering is, IMO at least, a model. Fine for describing things, but
not necessarily a good blueprint for an implementation.
compilation systems can be constructed which will
Receiver, InterScan has detected virus(es) in the e-mail attachment.
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:11:22 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Method: Mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
File: Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical Services.doc.pif
Action: clean failed - deleted
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 17 13:21:47 2001
* Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:58:35 -0500 (CDT)
* From: Timothy J. Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: [Hist Trivia] IP Protocol Layers
* X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Can anyone point me to an early
Incident Information:-
Originator:Dan Donaldson[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Comp
WARNING: The file Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical
Services.doc.pif you received was infected with the W32/SirCam@MM virus.
The file attachment is not delivered.
ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange has detected virus-infected attachment(s).
Sender = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipient(s) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject = Comp
Scanning Time = 07/24/2001 01:29:58
Action on virus found:
The attachment Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical Services.doc.pif
exists
Layering ought not to be religion, but appropriate layering
is a good design philosophy, and strict layering may help stave
off entropy death of the Internet protocols. Which, judging by
the announcements of new Internet Drafts, may not be far off.
Bob Braden
Incident Information:-
Originator:Dan Donaldson[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Comp
WARNING: The file Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical
Services.doc.pif you received was infected with the W32/SirCam@MM virus.
The file attachment is not delivered.
ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange has detected virus-infected attachment(s).
Sender = Dan Donaldson
Recipient(s) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject = Comp
Scanning Time = 07/23/2001 17:20:33
Action on virus found:
The attachment Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical Services.doc.pif
exists
Antigen for Exchange found Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical
Services.doc.pif infected with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman) virus.
The file is currently Removed. The message, Comp, was
sent from Dan Donaldson and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inbound
located at WaterCove/WATERCOVE/K2.
Antigen for Exchange found Comp. Agree. V-91200 Consumer Periodical
Services.doc.pif infected with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman) virus.
The file is currently Removed. The message, Comp, was
sent from Dan Donaldson and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inbound
located at WaterCove/WATERCOVE/K2.
At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery
stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher
priority.
an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the one from the
other?
d/
--
Dave
Antigen for Exchange found Alliance.xls.lnk infected with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Norman) virus.
The file is currently Removed. The message, Alliance, was
sent from Carlos Martinez and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inbound
located at WaterCove/WATERCOVE/K2.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam
At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
clearly 99.9% of spam is worse
14 matches
Mail list logo
