On Apr 23, 4:12*am, Bob Larter wrote:
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd wrote:



On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:50:21 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

msg wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:

msg wrote:
snip
Indeed, and I don't expect a large operator like Cox to do it, but
some ISPs
NAT their clients with RFC-1918 addresses, all of which translate to
a single
public IP, ergo, many NNTP users may all originate from a single IP..

True, but it's quite rare at ISPs. NATing is usually done in
businesses, rather than at ISPs.

*From time to time (for many years now) I deal with issues involving H.323
and RTP connectivity (payload contains IP information) and I am always
surprised by the number of ISPs I encounter that NAT their clients. These
are mostly small operators and often rural. I too run a neighborhood WISP
that NATs the clients, many of whom use the same O/S and NNTP user agents,
and I would be quite distressed if newsgroup readers assumed that IP
addresses and message headers uniquely identify the poster who just
happened
to be a neighbor and not myself.
On the bright side, DimBulb clearly isn't on a NATed IP, so one can
confidently filter him out with it.

* Bwuahahahahahah! *Filter boy doesn't have a clue.

*Just so you know, idiot, this is all on the same cable modem.

Gee, I never would've guessed, genius.

* I *could* also get on the wireless and simply grab up any number of
currently unsecured networks in the local area, but that *would* be
illegal, as opposed to the fact that I have done nothing illegal on my
computer.

You should learn to speak English.

* Om the bright side, I can prod you upside da haed ANY TIME I want to,
idiot.

Can you? - I don't think so.

--
* * W
* . | ,. w , * "Some people are alive only because
* *\|/ *\|/ * * it is illegal to kill them." * *Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------

THIS GROUP IS DISGUSTING SUCKING COX ON SCREEN FOR A LL TO SEE
WHEN DID THIS GET RELATED TO PRETINNED WIRE

I AM PROTEUS