On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:

Bad assumption. After all, terrorist is poorly defined, and from the perspective of a particular government.

Interesting you say this, same comes to mind concerning terrorists using so called cryptography simply because an agent of some government found "crypt.dll" on a machine and decided "By the love of INSERT_YOUR_DEITY_HERE they're using crypto now!"

Funny thing though, they don't seem to call their sites "spam-king", but instead "opt-in-real-big", or the equivalent. So, we have to examine their binaries to find the sites.

Isn't this sort of ironic. To "not" want to "police" yet want to examine "binaries to find sites." And how may I ask are you going to examine these binaries via traffic. Isn't that to the tune of an illegal tap being you would unlawfully check email in and out of your network. Or did I miss something. As for filtering sites from Spam/Porn/etc., on the ISP level, someone would have to be a complete reject to do so. I know I wouldn't want anything filtered. On a corporate level, I right now have to filter a lot of unwanted junk and recently had to tone down my filtering. HR woman searched for sexual harrassment and could not get information because my rules were stringent. Filtering on an ISP/NSP level I think is a horrible idea because I believe everyone has the right to free speech and thought. Filtering is also likely to introduce unwanted latency. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89 To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is the most desirable. The highest form of generalship is to conquer the enemy by strategy." - Sun Tzu