From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C2C636.6AAE0BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   The problem is that your customers can expose you to problems.  Any =
specific problem may have a specific solution.  In this case it would be =
your customer keeping his system up to date.  Far simpler than anything =
else.  The general problem though that your customers can expose you to =
problems is not technical.

   I see absolutely no connection between our discussion and the very =
broad issue of copy protection.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3e35ead7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e34b3fc{at}w3.nls.net...

  >>   I'm not sure your concern is as clear cut as it might be with a
  corporate server.  You mentioned in another thread today that you had =
a
  problem with a collocated server for which your customer has =
responsibility
  or shares responsibility for the server and you can suffer from your
  customers mistakes.  This is not a technical issue and there is no =
technical
  solution.<<

  It is a technical issue and there is a technical solution, it's called
  packet shaping and it should have stopped the traffic from the =
customers
  machine from reaching the router at a rate greater then their allowed
  bandwidth. I'm still trying to figure out what it is about this worm =
that
  allowed it to get past the packet shaper. It's obviously a =
misconfiguration
  of some sort since the packets weren't spoofed but as yet the =
technical
  solution evades me..

  But for a moment lets assume you are correct, that as long as a user =
is
  involved there is no technical solution. What are the implications of =
this
  line of reasoning wrt copy protection then?

  Geo.


------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C2C636.6AAE0BC0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   The
problem is that your =
customers can=20
expose you to problems.  Any specific problem may have a
specific=20 solution.  In this case it would be your customer
keeping his = system up to=20
date.  Far simpler than anything else.  The general
problem = though=20
that your customers can expose you to problems is not =
technical.
 
   I see
absolutely no =
connection between=20
our discussion and the very broad issue of copy =
protection.
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e35ead7$1{at}w3.nls.net..."Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3e34b3fc{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>  =20
  I'm not sure your concern is as clear cut as it might be with =
acorporate=20
  server.  You mentioned in another thread today that you had =
aproblem=20
  with a collocated server for which your customer has =
responsibilityor=20
  shares responsibility for the server and you can suffer from =
yourcustomers=20
  mistakes.  This is not a technical issue and there is no=20
  technicalsolution.<<It is a
technical issue and =
there is a=20
  technical solution, it's calledpacket shaping and it should have =
stopped=20
  the traffic from the customersmachine from reaching the router at =
a rate=20
  greater then their allowedbandwidth. I'm still trying to figure =
out what=20
  it is about this worm thatallowed it to get past the packet =
shaper. It's=20
  obviously a misconfigurationof some sort since the packets weren't =
spoofed=20
  but as yet the technicalsolution evades
me..But for a =
moment lets=20
  assume you are correct, that as long as a user isinvolved there is =
no=20
  technical solution. What are the implications of thisline of =
reasoning wrt=20
  copy protection
then?Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C2C636.6AAE0BC0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4