[at-l] Slow E-mail

[patv@ukans.edu (Pat Villeneuve)]

I agree--and happy birthday, Ryan, one more time.
Give Me Chocolate

Leslie Booher wrote:

> This afternoon, I was telling my husband the difference between this list
> and another that I'm on.  I said, "We have the most wonderful List Master."
> David said, "Does anyone ever tell him that?"  "Yes, we do."  But, in case
> no one's told you lately, Ryan, you do a wonderful job for us, you stay out
> of our way, and we love you.  Thank you.  anklebear
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ryan K. Brooks <ryan@hack.net>
> To: <AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net>
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [at-l] Slow E-mail
>
> > This is off topic, but since I'm involved in backbone operations here, I
> can
> > shed some light on this.
> >
> > - Carnivore does exist, although it has been renamed to something nicer
> that
> > I can't recall right now.  Basically it can snoop packets to rebuild
> email,
> > web, etc. sessions into something human readable and look for keywords.
> >
> > - Carnivore is on some networks, but only a few here and there and only as
> a
> > result of a wiretap order.  99% of traffic snooping on the Internet will
> > still require a subpoena for getting particular data.  There is no
> > ubiquitous ability to wiretap on the Internet.
> >
> > - Most of what law enforcement looks for in an order is log information.
> > Who was on when and  what IP # the were using.  If you're a dial-up ISP,
> > they may want mailbox contents, which is only really relevant if your mail
> > is unread or not kept locally on your PC.
> >
> > - As a result of 9/11, the wiretap stuff may become a bit blurry.  Instead
> > of a judge's order coming in for a particular user or timeframe, the law
> > enforcement folks may be able cast a wider net.   This is over simplified,
> > but close enough for discussion.
> >
> > - The government still doesn't have the capability to crack the public key
> > cryptography that's widely available to anyone on the planet.
> >
> > If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to discuss off list.
> >
> > -R
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: at-l-admin@mailman.backcountry.net
> > [mailto:at-l-admin@mailman.backcountry.net]On Behalf Of Bruce Calkins
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 4:26 PM
> > To: AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > Subject: [at-l] Slow E-mail
> >
> >
> > For What It's Worth,  A rumor floating around has it that the new "secret"
> > eavesdropping software on the server level hasn't settled in yet.  It is
> > supposed to scan for key words and send a duplicate of suspect E-mail to a
> > central computer somewhere for analyses.  If so it should settle in within
> > a month or so.  Of course you never know just what or who to believe
> > anymore.
> >
> > Black Wolfe.
> >
> > At 04:24 PM 10/14/01 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Has anyone else noticed a problem with e-mail reception?
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT-L mailing list
> > AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT-L mailing list
> > AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l