Endless Looping Of Emails

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:55:57 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg
<user@domain.invalid> wrote:

>Sounds like an IP subject to me.

Reread the post.

>What's the use of posting this here?

Reread the post.


The Not So Fine Art Of Google - Go To Top Of Thread
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E29A321E6

In article <opbr70hjp5mekt7qsvk9ike08n048sek8h@4ax.com>,
Cruising Chrissy <doublebreasted@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:55:57 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg
><user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>

>>Sounds like an IP subject to me.

>
>Reread the post.
>

>>What's the use of posting this here?

>
>Reread the post.

What Sander said... Makes sense.

--
Peter

Cruising Chrissy <doublebreasted@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Xpost to two Eudora Groups
>
>I have recently been in meetings where the concept of changing packet
>information has been discussed. The idea is to alter the outbound
>packet (software) so that it never lands on a server as a final
>destination. If this were possible, one could circulate data eternally
>and, if additional software could collect all the data back to one
>point, you would have data security in a new sense.
>
>Thoughts, comments of any kind appreciated.

I'd reconsider the people you attend meetings with. The concept
of packets of spam eternally circulating about the internet until
their exponential increase with further spam packets clogs the
entire internet up scares the s[tuff] out of me. Yeah you'd have
data security in a new sense, you'd have to move it the
old-fashioned way, on media through real space instead of
cyberspace. In your next meeting, bring up the Pony Express.
Now *there* was real data security, odd native-Americans on the
warpath aside.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:25:49 -0400, Ogden Johnson III
<oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'd reconsider the people you attend meetings with.

Outside the box folks take up a lot of my time.

> The concept
>of packets of spam eternally circulating about the internet until
>their exponential increase with further spam packets clogs the
>entire internet up scares the s[tuff] out of me.

Spam aside, the usage being considered is critical data.

> Yeah you'd have
>data security in a new sense, you'd have to move it the
>old-fashioned way, on media through real space instead of
>cyberspace.

Why for? If data is ever circulating, collectible at will at source(s)
of choice, storage can be optimized in location(s) that would only
need to hold onto it for real time usage. Then off it goes again. Got
a power down in the Northeast? So what. Data isn't affected. Plop your
data down somewhere there is power.

If you can introduce a bit level flipping methodology, the encryption
would be as tight as known to man.


The Not So Fine Art Of Google - Go To Top Of Thread
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E29A321E6