nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Brett Watson <brett () the-watsons org>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:38:38 -0700
On Mar 12, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Ross wrote:
How did a simple thread about network scanning get so derailed....we havepeople talking about the legal implications of port scanning, hiringlawyers to go after ISPs, talking to the fbi, the benefits/downfalls ofNAT as a security policy, etc. Wow just wow.
it's nanog, you expect something different? :)
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Herrin (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Mike Lewinski (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Glen Turner (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? J. Oquendo (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Allen Simpson (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Watson (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? N. Yaakov Ziskind (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Mark Andrews (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 13)