On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:39:11 -0500, you wrote: >V Guruprasad posted, in reply to private mail: > >> Obscurity would mean that a unique server host address exists but >> is not advertised. >No. Security through obscurity means any approach that attempts to protect >network resources (in this case, the server) by making them hard to find. VG gave a specific example of which you give the general case, seems to me that, at least in this area, you're "disagreeing to agree". :-) Rgds Denis -- Denis McMahon Usenet: Trim quotes Mobile: +44 7802 468949 Reply at the end Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't use html I trim ng when posting! Email domain blocking in use
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Knight
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil^H^H^H^Hmpls! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Kai Henningsen
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! V Guruprasad
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! John Stracke
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! V Guruprasad
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! John Stracke
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! V Guruprasad
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Denis Mcmahon
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Mike Fisk
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Holdrege
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! V Guruprasad
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sam Liang
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Fred Baker
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Fred Baker
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Fred Baker
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore