I think the article is based on someone that apparently just looks at statistics.
I think everyone that can is taking a pro-active stance on these things that this person says will kill the internet. We already know about the problems, we are fixing them.
His last statement, there is something called SPF which fixes that problem. SPF can make sure the sender is real.
But it should not be the basis of determining the internet will be done in 2006.
I would take the article more serious if they actually appeared to have technical knowledge on how the internet works. Any high school student could have researched the statistices on the internet and wrote a school assignment that says the same thing. Yippee!
said by keyboard5684:But it should not be the basis of determining the internet will be done in 2006.
Absolutely... Without knowledge of routing and system infrastructure, traffic flow analysis is worthless. That's why people who run flow models on networks can't be just statistical or network gurus, you have to know both well. If it wasn't for the draw of research, I'd probably being doing it.
quote: I would take the article more serious if they actually appeared to have technical knowledge on how the internet works. Any high school student could have researched the statistices on the internet and wrote a school assignment that says the same thing. Yippee!
Well, it just goes to show that statistics is a dangerous thing in the hands of a statistical moron and there are plenty of instances where this is true...
Its probably true in the case of this news story... -- Victory Not Vengeance Viva La Fee' Verte!
·
