Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:57:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.orgSPAMLESS
|
Viewed:
|
5647 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users.
Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal
with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think
Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston.
> Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected
> at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc.
Spoofing IPs probably wouldn't work, 'cause you actually need to see the
responses.
> > Yes that's again true.
> And I would argue that they are what makes lugnet lugnet.
Probably.
> I think we may be diverging again - a single-point-of-hardware-failure
> is a bad thing, yes, but I wouldn't want to see something that could
> operate on without Todd's consent. There simply needs to be an iron
> fist when necessary.
Well, consider the possiblity of Todd shutting down LUGnet over the
potential appearance of copyright violation in the linking-to-Lego's-site
Y2K set issue a little bit ago. I'd suggest that Todd only felt compelled to
do so exactly because of it being totally under his control. I don't think
that if the same information had been posted to, say, RTL, he woulda been
clamoring for Usenet to be shut down until things were sorted out.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (27 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (27 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users. Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc. Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets (...) (27 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
