Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law
From: notbob (notbob@nothome.com)
Date: 03/31/03
- Next message: Chris Lowth: "iptables and NFS"
- Previous message: notbob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: Carlton Houston: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: Carlton Houston: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: notbob <notbob@nothome.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:53:49 GMT
In article <b69reb$7ml$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>, Bill Unruh wrote:
> The question with laws is not what you would like them to mean, but what
> they could be construed to mean by a hostile court or even a hostile
> prosecutor.
Bingo!
nb
- Next message: Chris Lowth: "iptables and NFS"
- Previous message: notbob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: Carlton Houston: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: Carlton Houston: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
