Re: FBI tells the public to call their ISP for help

On Thursday 14 June 2007 10:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Since many Microsoft patches are only legally available via > > the Internet, and an ISP can not predict which servers > > Microsoft will use to distribute Microsoft patches, ISPs must > > enable essentially full Internet access which in

Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)

On Saturday 09 June 2007 16:43, Sean Donelan wrote: [...] > Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized > filtering solution? [...] In my opinion, it is not. With centralized, who gets to decide what is filtered and why? I don't beleive a governmental entity should h

Re: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff)

On Monday 04 June 2007 18:06, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:41 PM, David Schwartz wrote: > >> On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jim Shankland wrote: > >>> Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's no security gain from not having real IPs on machines. > Any belief that the

Re: Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive

On Saturday 12 May 2007 04:35, Fergie wrote: > > Suresh is right -- if you don't think CPE compromises are an > operational problem, then I'm not sure what is. :-) > > [changing gears] > > I'll even go a step further, and say that if ISPs keep punting > on the whole botnet issue, and continue to t