On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Joe Baptista wrote: [ http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp in full ] > Stephen Kent wrote: [..] > > I could go on to identify many more errors in the statements you made > > re various security matters. As the military would say, you message > > is a "target rich environment." But, I think this ones noted above > > suggest that you don't really understand the nature of security in > > the Internet. > > go ahead - consider it a learning challenge. and feel free to do so > privately. Speaking of learning challenges, Joe, are you planning on learning how to write? Let's see: $ The industry would agree that IPv4 is a brain dead protocol and $ those predicting it's death have good reasons for their position. The tense is wrong. That should be "brain-dead" and "its". You appear to be missing a second "that". (Those are things a competent editor would fix without a second thought.) More importantly, the assertion that you make there is unsupported by any other statement you make or any quotes you provide. Your article demonstrates some lack of understanding of networking and security, but also shows that you can't piece together a coherent argument. L. <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>