nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:00:25 -0800
Scanning is always a precursor to an attack
this is clearly not true, as scans are done for research and other goals. and conversely, all attacks are not preceded by scanning. randy
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse, (continued)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Dan Hollis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David G. Andersen (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Rob Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse E.B. Dreger (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Roy (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Feb 28)