In message 75cb24520911060747x3556e01tbb80be8c9e0d5...@mail.gmail.com, Christ
opher Morrow writes:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
`(2) INTERNET
If you're a consumer broadband provider, and you use a DNS blackhole
list so that any of your subscribers who tries to reach
bigbank1.fakebanks.example.com gets redirected to
fakebankwebsitelist.sipc.gov, you might be able to claim that you
complied with the law, though the law's aggressive enough
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
`(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider that, on
or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet
service provider, transmits, routes,
In message 23895.1257461...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
--==_Exmh_1257461806_2581P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
`(2) INTERNET
On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
`(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider
that, on
or through a system or network controlled or
I think the idea is for the government to create an official blacklist
of the offending sites, and for ISPs to consult it before routing a
packet to the fraud site. The common implementation would be an ACL on
the ISPs border router. The Congress doesn't yet understand the
distinction between
On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think the idea is for the government to create an official
blacklist of the offending sites, and for ISPs to consult it before
routing a packet to the fraud site. The common implementation would
be an ACL on the ISPs border router. The
IANAL, but I wouldn't set too much stock by that order - there are
numerous errors of fact in the opinion, and much of it relates to the
lack of due process in the maintenance of a secret blacklist. It was
also a state law, not a federal one, so there was a large jurisdictional
question (the
Net neutrality suffers another blow. I liked Congress when they had no
idea what the internet was, now they've progressed to still have no
idea but like to pretend.
Jeff
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Richard Bennett
Barry Shein wrote:
I was at an IP (as in intellectual property), um, constituency I
think, IPC, meeting at ICANN which basically consisted of 99 lawyers
and me in the room.
By the Montevideo ICANN meeting '01 the Internet Service Providers
Constituency
(ISPC) had dwindled down to the
10 matches
Mail list logo
