[45415] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Feb 1 09:06:16 2002
Message-Id: <200202011405.g11E5aqI010984@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
To: Chris Adams <chris@improbable.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:55:06 PST."
<A0119BA6-16E0-11D6-8D12-0003931044DC@improbable.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_807431600P";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:05:36 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_807431600P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:55:06 PST, Chris Adams <chris@improbable.org> said:
> proxies and some browsers can easily spoof user-agents but there's no
> reason other than NAT or proxying to explain automatically downloading
> both the NT and XP patch lists.
Hmm.. Odd.. I've seen machines that dual-boot NT and XP and not using either
NAT or proxying - I'd assume they'd at one point or another try to download
the NT and XP patch lists.
Hell. I've got a machine that has been known to be simultaneously downloading
both the AIX and RedHat patch lists. And it wasn't doing NAT or proxying. ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_807431600P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE8WqCwcC3lWbTT17ARAvE5AKCgckR06DRbDBmtcGahDguV++tE+QCgprBl
6u+D5pw+0Al2RWBpzfTzfRQ=
=ALQn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_807431600P--
