From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <14e92c9bc637376ce17807b7a436598d@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] ndb/local In-Reply-To: <471b30ebe09bf60ae8ca5e9088ddcc54@caldo.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-kblviloavbfnqupogyypzyrukc" Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:35:10 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 95b89b7e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-kblviloavbfnqupogyypzyrukc Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, it just means that the attach was from none. It probably was done by a daemon running as none before it switched authenticated and switched to something else. --upas-kblviloavbfnqupogyypzyrukc Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Tue Apr 22 16:31:24 EDT 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Tue Apr 22 16:31:22 EDT 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id B07F019B58; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from lavoro.home.cs.york.ac.uk (public1-york1-5-cust44.leed.broadband.ntl.com [80.0.45.44]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 98F6C19B4D for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <471b30ebe09bf60ae8ca5e9088ddcc54@caldo.demon.co.uk> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] ndb/local From: Charles Forsyth In-Reply-To: <38f17efea1888d18d4a1daccf5fb67ba@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:27:55 +0100 >> 16: none il!135.104.9.15!31936 0 0 (1,3) (-183238,976,-9024) (2585,258,125,0) i noticed there were quite a few `none's in the list. is this a new ploy to avoid attention from Lucent anti-HR? a bit like Ulysses in reverse: `lay off none!' --upas-kblviloavbfnqupogyypzyrukc--