Subject: aged mail

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:32:18 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Follks,

I apologize for the blast of delayed mail. I have taken steps to insure
the delay in processing is not repeated.

Steve

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:11:25 -0800

> the delay in processing is not repeated.

it was not a delay in processing.  it was a replay attack.  we had seen it
all before.

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:13:11 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

>>it was not a delay in processing.  it was a replay attack.  we had seen it

These messages were in the wgchairs queue, marked as holding for
approval. They were approved, and then appeared in our inboxes.

That is why I used the words that I did. 

Steve

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:43:59 -0500

> it was not a delay in processing.  it was a replay attack.  we had seen it

No, they were not duplicates, or my duplicate-caching would have
noticed (unless the messageIDs were changed).  They all looked new to
me (content-wise), albeit delayed in the relay..

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com