[41405] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (steve uurtamo)
Fri Sep 7 20:39:41 2001
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:37:34 -0700
From: steve uurtamo <uurtamo@arttoday.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010907173734.C7087@ofc-204.arttoday.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200109080056.AAA15076@vacation.karoshi.com>; from bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com on Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 12:56:17AM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> And can I persuade the judge that since NATs are known to
> muck about w/ addresses & such that I can construct a case
> that what was received did not come from me. So the porn
> came from one of the NAT operators.
similarly, the anonymous remail operator sends all outbound mail, eh?
i dunno.
s.
