Re: Snot/state [WAS: Re: Signature and Traffic generation]
From: Al Huger - Mail Account (ah1@securityfocus.com)Date: 03/18/02
- Previous message: Greg Shipley: "Re: Snot/state"
- In reply to: John S Flowers: "Re: Snot/state [WAS: Re: Signature and Traffic generation]"
- Next in thread: Andrea Barisani: "Re: Snot/state [WAS: Re: Signature and Traffic generation]"
- Next in thread: Brian: "Re: Signature and Traffic generation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:15:30 -0700 (MST) From: Al Huger - Mail Account <ah1@securityfocus.com> To: John S Flowers <jflowers@well.com>
John,
If the moderator will allow it I am interested in hearing how the solution
your company builds addresses these issues. I suppose I could guess given
the direction your posts take but I think it would be instructive none the
less for you to have a chance to explain it.
-al
Alfred Huger
VP Engineering
SecurityFocus
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, John S Flowers wrote:
> I have to both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree with the
> comments about Snot and state, but not with the idea in general.
>
- Previous message: Greg Shipley: "Re: Snot/state"
- In reply to: John S Flowers: "Re: Snot/state [WAS: Re: Signature and Traffic generation]"
- Next in thread: Andrea Barisani: "Re: Snot/state [WAS: Re: Signature and Traffic generation]"
- Next in thread: Brian: "Re: Signature and Traffic generation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|