Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law
From: Dave Thornburgh (dave-thorn@nodash.adelphia.net)
Date: 04/01/03
- Next message: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Previous message: Spam Me!: "iptable puzzle about DHCP + LAN + DMZ routing"
- In reply to: notbob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: Whoever: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Dave Thornburgh" <dave-thorn@nodash.adelphia.net> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:49:45 GMT
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:SY0ia.280926$F1.48830@sccrnsc04...
> In article <3ojVq6Ca4Ii+EwVP@jretrading.com>, Joe wrote:
>
> > But of NAT is almost always used to conceal an unroutable IP number that
> > has never been issued to anyone and is definitely not usable to identify
> > anyone...
>
> But the legislation does not make such a distinction. NAT does, in
> fact, "conceal" the "point of origin".
Have you yet read the legislation? I've only read the ones from 4 states -
I quit looking when I see how almost identical they are.
As the point of the legislation is to protect the communication service
provider from fraud, I would say the in the case of a NAT device, the NAT
device itself is the "source" or "destination". For example: in my case,
this would be the CPE directly attached to my cable modem - my trusty
Linksys router.
Dave
- Next message: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Previous message: Spam Me!: "iptable puzzle about DHCP + LAN + DMZ routing"
- In reply to: notbob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: Whoever: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|