|
22 Apr 03 - 06:59 PM (#938076) Subject: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas An advance notice for articles to appear soon in Ziff Davis publications cites an "eWeek" article: "As of this moment, the security level of the Internet has taken a big hit. And it's not because of a new worm or some nefarious hacker collective; it's because of a set of badly conceived laws that have been passed by several states. "These measures, referred to as Super DMCA laws ... are badly designed laws promoted by the Motion Picture Association of America. Super DMCA legislation has already been passed in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. "Now Super DMCA has claimed one of its first victims, the award-winning open-source application LaBrea, which is designed to stop the spread of worms such as Nimda across the Internet. Tom Liston, the developer of LaBrea, has stopped distribution of the program for fear of prosecution under the Illinois version of this law. "Why would a program that stops harmful worms from spreading run afoul of a law that is on the surface intended to stop cable theft? Because, like the less-damaging federal DMCA law, Super DMCA is overly broad and lacks common sense ... "One of the common aspects of these laws is that they make illegal any device or program that can "conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." Aside from LaBrea, this makes a whole set of common IT programs and hardware illegal, from firewalls to VPNs to privacy applications. "So if you live in one of these states, you are now breaking the law if you run a firewall. And if you're an IT admin that has all of your internal systems running on NAT, you could face as much as five years in prison and up to a quarter-million-dollar fine. " If interest warrents, I'll try to post links when they are available, (but I've not noted that the lack of facts is not a barrier to discussion here .... :-)). This does appear to be a legitimate commentary on the stupidity of legislators... John |
|
22 Apr 03 - 07:03 PM (#938080) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: katlaughing So...my ZoneAlarm is illegal? Jaysus, what next!? Do they offer any suggestions of what we can do to combat this idiocy? Thanks for posting this and yes, I'd love to see more. kat |
|
22 Apr 03 - 08:20 PM (#938134) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: GUEST,Jon John, more details are needed. I'm in paranoid mode at the moment mostly are the result of reading comments here pointing towards the US erosion of basic civil rights. Wouldn't such a move make it easier for a government to spy on users? Jon |
|
22 Apr 03 - 09:36 PM (#938171) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Don Firth I recently installed Sygate Personal Firewall Pro and was immediately astounded and a bit horrified at the number of--what can I call them?--entities who seem interested in my activities and the contents of my computer's hard drive. I don't even know who or what they are, but when the little icon begins to flash, I double-click on it and it shows me a list of attempts to get into my computer, the time and duration of the attempt, the number of "hops," and an IP address (a string of numbers that I don't know how to interpret). This is all a bit beyond my level of expertise. I don't know what to make of this. Can anybody enlighten me? Don Firth |
|
22 Apr 03 - 10:02 PM (#938182) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: mack/misophist Mr Firth, For IP addresses, do a search for a free utility called 'whois' or use the search at samspade.com. There are several ways to check. This will give you the contact details for the domaine name holder. I was attacked once from a girl's school in Korea and once from a NASA installation. I advise you to quit looking. You can report it but few will listen. |
|
22 Apr 03 - 10:46 PM (#938206) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage Don, I'm surprised these days if the little "alarm" icon isn't flashing after I've been online for a few minutes. It's going right now, let's see who it is: the program says an address at 61.174.174.217 is the culprit. The tracing feature of my Norton Firewall says this is from "Chinanet-ZJ" (in Zhejiang province) in China. China Telecom is not likely to slap anyone's wrist for running programs that try to break into Earthlink accounts in Texas. I keep my Antivirus up to date, and when I turn off my computer at night I also turn it off at the power supply so it can't reanimate during the night when I'm sound asleep. Soon I'll have a router in, and we'll see if that helps shield my computer better. Maggie (SRS) |
|
23 Apr 03 - 01:23 AM (#938258) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas The article cited in the "advance notice" I received is at eWeek, which is another Ziff Davis publication. I think most of the essentials were quoted above. As described, even my use of "Internet Connection Sharing" to connect my computer through SWMBO's big 'un instead of having a separate line for each machine would be illegal in the states that have passed these new laws, since it aliases my communications as though they come from her machine. The newsletter I got implies that there will be additional information in upcoming magazine issues, but is rather non-specific about when I can expect to see something more. John |
|
23 Apr 03 - 02:33 AM (#938280) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: katlaughing If you go to google news and enter "Super DMCA laws" in the search there are quite a number of article links which come up, including the e-week one which has links to other articles one of which is about the first criminal trial based on these laws in San Jose, CA. One opinion was quite optimistic stating the laws would not last once big companies are told they have to dismantle their protective programs. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 03:16 AM (#938294) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas And as pointed out in the eWeek article - once the legislatures are informed that their own nets are now illegal? Or will that bring them back to sanity? John |
|
23 Apr 03 - 05:52 AM (#938327) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: GUEST,Jon Don, with Sygate, you should be able to view the logs. Right click on an item and choose "backtrace". You can do "Whois lookups" from the results. If you want to use an internet tool, try ARIN. Thanks John, I've followed up a few of the links from that page. The law seems completely unworkable and defies all common sense. Assuming these people have some clue about IT, I suppose they would be arguing along the lines that the law won't be applied to legitimate usage of techonology but I never trust statements along those sort of lines - it's the letter of the law that matters... Just looking at the firewall issue, it reads to me like millions of people are being expected to put thier own security at risk to protect the financial interests of a select few who make $millions. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 02:35 PM (#938672) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: SeanM To the question of the firewall pings... Sometimes it's a legit "attack". Sometimes it's the ISP "pinging" to make sure it's an active connection. Sometimes it's a website sending a check to make sure you're you. It's all up in the air. Tracing does no good in 99.99999999% of the cases - any hacker worth his/her salt will just be spoofing the IP address anyway, and all you'll come up with is either (best case) no result or (worst case) an innocent IP address. And, as noted above, a lot of hits are generated from abroad in the first place. Just keep the firewall up and updated (they're constantly coming up with new countermeasures, and the hackers then try to counter them, and the cycle continues - sometimes I think it's all made up by programmers to keep themselves employed), and keep a virus scan up and updated as well. Trojan Horses are called that for a reason - no matter how 'advanced' the firewall, loading something in that opens the gates for the "enemy" will go around it. M |
|
23 Apr 03 - 03:47 PM (#938721) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Rapparee Frankly, I don't see the point of the legislation. Looks to me that, like the "Patriot Act," it's another case of things enacted in haste and without any input from the real world, but something that does make legislators feel good about themselves. I'll keep my firewall, just as I lock my doors. If they want to prosecute me they can go ahead and do so. F**k 'em if they can't take a joke, as we used to say. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 04:05 PM (#938732) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Hollowfox Woo Hoo, does this mean that those blocking programs that are supposed to protect kids from pornography (with congress' blessing) are illegal as well? |
|
23 Apr 03 - 04:11 PM (#938740) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas I haven't dug into this much as yet, but it appears that the movie and music moguls think they should be able to positively identify anyone who downloads "their" treasures - so screw everybody as long as they get their cut. (They need the money to pay their pols?) John |
|
23 Apr 03 - 05:57 PM (#938803) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: SeanM I wish I could find the link... there was a fair amount of talk about legislation sponsored by RIAA, HFA and others where they'd not only be allowed to snoop into your system to check to see if you'd anything of theirs illegally, but would be allowed to sabotage your system (or be protected from any damage claims if there was no cause for attack or if they caused financial loss from their meddling) if they found something. Sad. M |
|
23 Apr 03 - 10:52 PM (#938961) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas SeanM - There has been talk of something like that, and unfortunately the people talking about it seem to be able to buy enough legislators to be rather dangerous. Maybe all those virus writers will come in handy some day. "Revenge of the Worm" sounds like a great movie title (or maybe the name for a rock band - poetic justice?) John |
|
24 Apr 03 - 10:14 AM (#939180) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage Another urgent update is available to put into IE, for another security problem. I found four total to download for my system. Downloaded and installed them last night, turned off the computer, and this morning the new stuff reset my desktop resolution to incredibly low and scrambled around all of the icons I had arranged in clusters. Damn! It's like someone going into your closet and mixing all of your shoes and socks in a heap. Gotta go arrange it again. Just beware that while you may need this new "fix," you'll spend a little time picking up after it. Windows Update SRS |
|
24 Apr 03 - 10:21 AM (#939185) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: katlaughing Sean, if you go to google news and enter RIAA in the search there are qute a few articles which come up, most about Napster and also Verizon. I had seen a reference to Hollywood and this the other day on google news, too, but forgot to go back to it for a link. kat |
|
24 Apr 03 - 01:55 PM (#939339) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas Gosh Stilly - I get about an upgrade per week on the automated system. They pop up, I check to see what they're about and usually let them install, and they never seem to cause a problem. Of course, back before I automated and my system got hopelessly out of date, there were a few glitches... Most of them - if your system is already current - are comparable to getting a new signature file from your AV, although they may require a reboot (one in 3 or 4 updates?). Scrambled icons used to give me fits until I figured out that you can rename them to include an icon number. Then autoarrange-alpha puts everything back pretty easily. John |
|
24 Apr 03 - 06:41 PM (#939551) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage John, I go in every couple of weeks to check what's available, but frankly, I don't WANT Microsoft deciding it's time to add something to my computer. I read the reason for the update and decide if I want it or not. I updated just a couple of weeks ago, but I read about this new critical update (another problem with IE--duh) and visited the site and only added some of them. But in the process, when I essentially "rebooted" (the next morning, not right then) I got the altered desktop. I don't know if it would do me any good to try a system like you describe--I'm regularly adding and removing icons as I work. Hey, on an unrelated note, did you know that if you've had your eyes dilated that the screen flicker is really apparent? I've been online for only a few minutes, and I'm going to stop now because this probably isn't healthy. I'll read more at Mudcat when the pupils go back to normal. And tomorrow I'll go fill the Rx for the medium & close range glasses that should help me get rid of this horrid stiff neck from doing intense computer work for hours on end with my head tipped back so I can see the screen. (Only reason I can see the screen at all now is because I hiked the font size all the way up to the biggest). SRS |
|
24 Apr 03 - 07:08 PM (#939571) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: NicoleC SRS -- Get the anti-reflective coating. Really. Best $50 I ever spent, and I spend about 9 hours in front of a computer at work every day. |
|
24 Apr 03 - 07:14 PM (#939576) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: katlaughing Monitor position makes a big difference in eye and neck fatigue for me. Here's what they generally recommend: Your Monitor - It should be directly in front of you, at a height that the top line of the monitor screen is at your eye level. You should be viewing it from at least 18-24 inches away. |
|
24 Apr 03 - 07:32 PM (#939588) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Rapparee SRS, if you wear glasses and work on a computer, do yourself a BIG favor and invest in glasses just for computer work. This is especially helpful if you have joined the latest fad and wear those glasses that have lines across the bottom (i.e., bifocals). |
|
24 Apr 03 - 07:38 PM (#939593) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas Stilly - All the automated system does is to download the install program for new stuff in the background so that you can decide at your own convenience whether you want to install it. You get a little flag that pops up in your system tray that says something new is there. You still get to look at the description, and there's usually a KB article cited if you want more info. You still decide whether to install it, wait until later, or dump it. None of the "gee-whiz-golly-you-really-want-this-because-it's-fun" stuff that they offer as optional goodies on the update site ever downloads this way. It's only for the critical updates that address specific security and operating issues. I was a little suspicious myself, but I do find it to be a great time-saver, and a convenience; and it eliminates the need to go to the update site and sit there waiting for the machine check to finish in order to find out if there's something new that applies to your machine. And I've observed the flicker effect with dilation. The extra light that's getting in when the pupils are enlarged "numbs" the primary vision cells - too much of the normal recovery lag (aftervision) that makes a bright image "stay visible" when you shut your eyes. The cells normally used for peripheral vision take over, and they're much more sensitive to flickers and rapid motions. The way to see the mouse in the kitchen is to not be looking where he is when he moves. You'll see him a lot quicker "out of the corner of your eye." Rest the peepers till you get things right. John |
|
24 Apr 03 - 10:59 PM (#939682) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage Thanks, all! Vision about back to normal. Great description of what's going on there, John. Night vision is always best when you don't look directly at what you want to see. Most of the flicker is gone now. I had the checkup today, and will go select the frames and lenses tomorrow. The place I go has a good doctor but their application of insurance is nuts--they drop all of the discounts if you have insurance. Last time I priced glasses there, it was $490 for the lenses, frames, coatings. I asked, out of curiosity, how much it would be if I walked in off the street with no insurance. It would be $495. Something is fishy with all of that! I went over to Lens Crafters and got the glasses, with great frames, for $160. They are the no-line bifocals, and do have an added feature of a middle zone between distance and closeup, but they're not aligned properly for the computer work. I have my screen in the right position, and I also have to set up my chair to keep leg circulation correct and I rest my feet on the power cell (I don't have it plugged in, so it's at least good for something!) It's getting the proper lenses for the computer work that I've been needing--so I can look straight ahead. The new lenses will not be suitable for driving or any distance work, they'll only be good for the monitor or books, papers, etc. Mid to close range. I debated about coatings--they do work, but they show up the dust and they scratch so easily. The expensive place has a lens replacement guarantee for a year, so I'll price a couple of places and decide. My current glasses have had a big annoying scratch on them for the past 8 months or so. The main time the coatings and the grit on them bother me is when I'm driving, so that will be moot with the new lenses. (Just thinking out loud in case anyone else is contemplating buying what seem like specialized glasses instead of the garden variety one-pair-fits-all-occasions-type--thanks Rapaire!) I leaned down to reach into a kitchen cupboard to pick up a can of green beans this evening, and my shoulders and neck spasmed at the stretching/lifting move. I have to change my glasses so I stop holding my head in the wrong position. I do this at least 8-hours a day. I have a couple of deadlines for print documents (and then I have to put them online, along with the last newsletter. . .) NicoleC--thanks also for the helpful advice (I probably would have skipped the coatings this time, except for your remarks here). SRS |
|
24 Apr 03 - 11:25 PM (#939692) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Mark Clark SRS, I completely agree with Nicole's and Repaire's advice. Do get the anti-glare coating and do get a pair designed only for computer work. Don't get the progressive lenses. Get standard bi-focals with the lines. Progressives are okay for walking around but because of the geometry of lenses, progressive lenses will force you to turn your head instead of move your eyes as you work. The useful area of correction with progressive lenses is shaped rather like a martini glass with the stem where your bi-focal would be. Your eyes will only be comfortable while looking through the center of your glasses. When bi-focals are made with lines, it's as though two separate lenses were made and put together. Each facet provides the correct perscription over its whole area. - Mark |
|
25 Apr 03 - 12:22 AM (#939710) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage Mark, (This is thread drift, but since we're all sitting at our computers using our eyes, I suppose it's probably helpful thread drift!) I asked about traditional bifocals--because the narrow field of clear focus is what I've experienced with my current pair. The glasses I would order have no line, but are meant to have more focal area. The lenses the expensive place pushes are from Zeiss, are much closer to flat, and are meant for computer work. (They're about $160 for the lenses, which is lower than their estimate on a pair that is more or less a tri-focal, with, as you say, that narrow focal area right in the middle of the lens in front of the center of your eyeball). I didn't wear glasses at all until the last couple of years, so I hate the idea that I have to turn my head, not just move my eyes. That's why this type of lens was suggested. The web site for this company, Rodenstock, isn't much to look at (ha!) but the bit on this page identifies what you're talking about. They're designed to have a wider viewing area than traditional bifocal lenses (as I said--I asked that question right off the bat. I need to be able to see better in the work I'm doing). This page offers a diagram of how the different bifocals look. Now if I could just end up with such great cheekbones (click on the "examples" link) if I bought the frames they suggest! I'm sure the price is way up there. SRS |
|
25 Apr 03 - 11:22 AM (#939975) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Uncle_DaveO I have to give a contrarian report on the lenses. Do NOT get the antiglare coating. You'll go crazy trying to keep them clean. They're always sort of greasy-surfaced. I had one pair with the coating, and never again. Dave Oesterreich |
|
25 Apr 03 - 01:57 PM (#940091) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas Most of the suggestions offered about helping out the eyes are good ones, but you need to choose what's best for your own individual needs. I especially liked kat's suggestion on proper alignment and viewing distance; but must note that it depends on the kind and size of screen you use. The "rule of thumb" that's a little more general is that you should be about 1.0 to 1.5 times the screen's maximum diagonal from the monitor. 18 inches is a little short even for a 15" screen, but would likely be ok. If you have one of the larger monitors, 19 or 21 inches, you may be more comfortable with 30" or even a little more. People do have a tendency to get closer to the screen than is best for the eyes. Since the pixels are about the same size for any size monitor, a larger screen can have many more pixels and hence tends to be able to display at "higher resolution." This makes things on the screen smaller, and also makes flicker more noticeable. A 70 Hz refresh rate may be acceptable on a small screen, or on a large one at low res, but at higher resolutions you may need up to 90 Hz to keep flicker below where you see it (even subconsciously). If you look away from the screen, so that it's about 45 degrees to the side of your line of vision, you'll see it with your peripheral cells and may see some flicker. If you do see flicker there, you need either a higher refresh rate or a lower resolution. Some screen/driver/computer combinations actually slow down the refresh rate at the highest resolutions - the opposite of what's really needed, so you have to look at your setup to know what you can use and what's just advert fluffery. An advantage of using a longer screen viewing distance sometimes is that you can get your screen viewing distance closer to the reading distance for material you use "off screen." This might permit you to use monofocal lenses for glasses that you use only while working; but of course this depends on how much accommodation range your eyeballs can manage, and on your keeping a "clean" workspace so that you can keep the offscreen material at proper distance. If you're getting new general use glasses, you might want to go ahead with them; and after you get them, get a set of mono lenses put in your old frame to try out whether you can use them. It shouldn't cost you more than $30 or $40 and a couple of days to set up to try it. If you decide you like it, you can go back and get the whole setup, or whatever other setup you decide you need in your "working" glasses. (Science costs money, but it's a relatively cheap test.) One of my reasons for going to Lenscrafters for my last set (too long ago) was that they were the only ones in my area that knew what I was talking about when I asked if they had polycarbonate lenses. There are many kinds of "plastic" lenses, and too many of them are very susceptible to scratching. The good polycarb lenses are even more resistant than most optical glass, and my local Lenscrafter claims to use it for all their lenses. I don't know if this is a "Lenscrafter everywhere" thing, or is local. If a dispenser suggests a "scratch resistant coating" go somewhere else - they're using a soft plastic. Anti-glare coating makes good hard lenses more susceptible to damage (esp. during cleaning) but may not make much difference with one of the softer plastics. It shouldn't be necessary if you can arrange decent lighting in your workspace. This means no "excessively" bright windows or unshielded lightbulbs and no "excessively" dark "corners" in your working area. If you get "reflections" from a good set of lenses in a decent workspace, it usually means they've been "microscratched" (or are dirty) and should be replaced (or cleaned). General rules may not apply in your case - so ignore our opinions with confidence. You're closer to your own eyeballs than any of the rest of us. John |
|
25 Apr 03 - 03:27 PM (#940152) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: katlaughing Good points all, John. I have my monitor a good 30-32 inches away from me and use my regular single vision lenses. I have always taken my glasses off for reading, so it works out alright esp. with it that far away. I am amazed at how close some people have their monitors, but I guess it's what they are comfortable with. In some case, such as a sister of mine, I know they have them close because of vision problems. For me, the distance is even more important for my neck than my eyes; that and the right height. I had the coatings and hated it for the easy scratching and *glint.* A long time ago a radical doc in CT suggested I use half-strength glasses for computer work. I tried but my eyes really went nuts trying to adjust. Recently a doc talked me into trying the progressive lenses and I hated them. Went back to just my regular and sometimes my old ones, not as strong, for some work which is esp. fatiguing, i.e. jewelry design and some reading. Thanks for the info John about plastic lenses. Thanks SRS for the link to that company. kat |
|
25 Apr 03 - 03:47 PM (#940167) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas I did the single lens thing for a while. A place where I worked required safety glasses in the shop - where I went occasionally. The real problem was that you had to go through the shop to get to the potty, so they were essential. I had the safety glasses made to the mid-range of my trifocals. Since they were used only "indoors" I didn't really need the distance lens, and the mid range was about right for the computer. The only real problem is that safety glasses (in my prescription) are very heavy and I ended up with lumbago of the nose bridge if I wore them too long at a time. John |
|
25 Apr 03 - 06:11 PM (#940271) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage Good points again. DaveO, I dislike the way the coated lenses pick up grease and lint, and are harder to keep clean. But I also dislike seeing my eyeball reflected back at me when I'm reading the lighted surface of the monitor. The reason I'm going ahead and getting the anti-glare coating is because I won't be using these outside or when I'm driving, when the coating is at it's most annoying. I think for an indoor pair of glasses they'll do what they're supposed to do. I sit about 24 inches or more back from my monitor. The resolution is set so that I can work on multiple windows at once, so the higher the resolution the more bits of a task I can have going at once. This means, for example, that I will be using FrontPage and Word and PhotoDraw and Notepad, and viewing the results with IE and Netscape, so all are open more or less simultaneously. I do minimize them to get them out of the way, but I'm always popping in and out of these programs. And then (with no segue) there's the firewall that we started talking about. Can anyone discuss how routers and their software fit into the legal/illegal discussion that started this thread? They block a lot of stuff, or keep inquisitive hackers out (or so I've been told). SRS |
|
25 Apr 03 - 06:26 PM (#940293) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: NicoleC I just have the one set of glasses, and a benefit I never expected from anti-reflective coating was that night driving became much easier on the eyes, particularly when driving with SUV headlights (at the most annoying height possible) shining through my rear window. I found the propensity of the lenses to get dirty an annoyance a first; one I alleviated by putting a special cleaning cloth in my purse, one in my drawer at work, etc. I don't even notice anything now. I use a glare filter as well; between the two it's almost acceptable that the lighting stinks. |
|
25 Apr 03 - 07:10 PM (#940325) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: JohnInKansas Basically, the router connects to the web, and is assigned a temporary identity by the service it connects to. All computers that go out through the router look like they are "that same identity," and hence are "disguised" so far as the outside world is concerned. The identity of an individual computer going through the router cannot be determined from the outside, and this is what's illegal as the new state laws are written. This probably oversimplifies things, but I think it's the gist of it. John |
|
25 Apr 03 - 08:32 PM (#940403) Subject: RE: BS: Tech: Your Firewall is Illegal? From: Stilly River Sage I predict a high volume of mailorder routers into those states soon, then! |