Eric writes:
I know of a major direct backbone connection in
a near ISP (tens of Mbps) that didn't respond anymore.
Wow ... tens of Mbps counts as major in your part of the woods?
What could have been the reason? Too much sudden traffic?
Some strategic nodes destroyed? Bad re-routing?
Interesting. I didn't notice any trouble with telephones in France yesterday.
In fact, I was alerted of these events by friends calling from the U.S., as they
know that I don't watch the news. No trouble with the Internet, either, except
that a number of news sites were slow or completely
Second of all, there is a rumor that war WILL
BE DECLARED. Supposedly all males between 18
and 40 will be drafted.
When you have facts, instead of rumors, let us know. In the meantime, spreading
misinformation and hysteria is extremely irresponsible.
I heard that the Illuminati and
Please do not spread hysteria.
- Original Message -
From: Don McMorris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 19:22
Subject: World war 3
Hello everybody. I am contacting you to make sure you know of a problem
currently going on.
The Internet seems to be to a near halt from
where I stand, the Pacific Islands. I think the
Internet has never seen so much overload on its US
section...
The reports I've seen indicate no significant overload overall, only an overload
on many news sites.
I was wondering, and I have asked the firm where I
work, if all web sites (commercial and otherwise)
should go dark in memory of the victims today.
Heck, maybe the whold world should shut down for a week, just to show that
American casualties are _far_ more important than casualties in any
Scott writes:
The Code Red virus doesn't just use addresses
from the infected users address book ...
I was talking about fallout from the SirCam virus, which is still filling my
mailbox. As far as I can tell, it's all coming from people subscribed to this
list, but I'm not really sure.
As
Dave writes:
On the other hand, aggressively ignoring 25
years of networking security experience
should be worthy of at least a bit of criticism.
Well, if that ever happens, be sure to document it and report back to us.
Keith writes:
until they get burned, that is.
then they blame the network for their problems.
They are more likely to blame their OS vendor, in my experience. Microsoft is a
particularly tempting target because so many people feel compelled to bash
anyone who has done better than they have,
Randy writes:
oh you mean 98% of microsoft's customer base.
yup, that's they. and ms loves to sell to the naive.
All vendors try to sell to as many customers as possible. And today, 98% of all
customers are technically unsophisticated. So any vendor that wants to seel to
the average person
Melinda writes:
It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward
and said This is my problem. I will try to fix it.
I'll say it, at least with respect to machines under my control. I just avoid
opening suspicious attachments, actually. That works really well.
At the moment, in the case of
Jamal writes:
MS is producing inferior products which are using
the internet to create havoc.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any?
Jamal writes:
I dont see anything extraordinary in those claims.
You don't substantiate them, either. This being so, they serve no purpose, as
rants against Microsoft are a dime a dozen on the Net--just about every young
male who isn't rich or has failed to get an instant offer from MS after
Keith writes:
perhaps because they are shipped that way?
Microsoft ships servers with most security features set to low security, because
customers whine and complain otherwise. Customers buy on the basis of features
and ease-of-use, not security, no matter what they might claim to the
All vendors do it, because no matter what customers say, they really do prefer
ease of use and fancy features to system security. If you try to sell a truly
secure system that is configured by default in a secure mode, nobody will buy
it. Any vendor that wants to stay in business, including
Lloyd Wood writes:
Telephone numbers are not equivalent to IP
addresses (although you say they are), and
it's a long time since actual telephone numbers
have been used for hierarchical routing.
They are more similar than different, certainly enough so for the purposes of
the vulgarization I
It doesn't really matter, since, for the average user, there is only one TLD,
and that is COM.
The whole concept of a TLD is an anachronism that does not apply to the
interests of multinational businesses and organizations. It should be made
invisible to users who don't wish to specify it
Randy Bush writes:
both assertions are false
Not terribly relevant to my original point, but: I want to be able to
individually address every machine on a single worldwide network running IP.
How do I do this without a unique IP address for each machine?
Ned writes:
There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be
shared by multiple machines which you may or may
not choose to use.
Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine,
or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways.
Paul Ebersman writes:
First, assuming that I (as a user of some service)
must reach a particular, unique machine is a geek
wish, not a requirement.
Who said anything about users of a service? I want to reach my parents'
machine. They are not geeks, and I am not looking for a service.
20 matches
Mail list logo
