Webmaster forum - I don't trust my hosting company

Author

I don't trust my hosting company

hkcat1@gmail.com

2006-08-16, 10:43 pm

I have sign up a 1 year contract with them. From the customer service
and technical service I get. I feel they look into my files casually,
for example they will report copyright violation to me that they found
page 253 to 256 of my 400 pages company training menu (a password
protected PDF) contains knowledge base article from Microsoft web site
and tell me to remove it!

What I do now is upload password protected rar files with 20 digits
upper-case lower-case symbol numeric passwords with complete
meaningless file name and I rename the extension. Is that safe enough?

It is a pain for me to access my own files now, Is there a better way
to protect my files from the hosting company? and at the same time I
can access those files easily?

Chaddy2222

2006-08-17, 6:41 am

hkcat1@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> I have sign up a 1 year contract with them. From the customer service
> and technical service I get. I feel they look into my files casually,
> for example they will report copyright violation to me that they found
> page 253 to 256 of my 400 pages company training menu (a password
> protected PDF) contains knowledge base article from Microsoft web site
> and tell me to remove it!

That sounds perfectly normal for a copyright violation.

>
> What I do now is upload password protected rar files with 20 digits
> upper-case lower-case symbol numeric passwords with complete
> meaningless file name and I rename the extension. Is that safe enough?
>
> It is a pain for me to access my own files now, Is there a better way
> to protect my files from the hosting company? and at the same time I
> can access those files easily?
not really. perhaps crediting where you get your information from, or
not placeing copyrighted documents on your site in the first place
might help though.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Brian Cryer

2006-08-17, 6:41 am

<hkcat1@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:1155777315.889052.171800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have sign up a 1 year contract with them. From the customer service
> and technical service I get. I feel they look into my files casually,
> for example they will report copyright violation to me that they found
> page 253 to 256 of my 400 pages company training menu (a password
> protected PDF) contains knowledge base article from Microsoft web site
> and tell me to remove it!
>
> What I do now is upload password protected rar files with 20 digits
> upper-case lower-case symbol numeric passwords with complete
> meaningless file name and I rename the extension. Is that safe enough?
>
> It is a pain for me to access my own files now, Is there a better way
> to protect my files from the hosting company? and at the same time I
> can access those files easily?

None of us like a ticking off, but in this case it sounds like your hosting
company is doing you a service and protecting you from prosecution for
copyright infringement.

If you need material from other people then obtain their permission first
and then show that permission to your hosting company. Otherwise stay inside
the law.

In answer to your last point, if you want a better way to protect your files
and yet keep them easily accessible: buy a small flash drive and keep your
files on that instead of hosting them. (This doesn't avoid your obligations
under copyright law, but if you instead kept a cached copy of the Microsoft
page you move into the grey area which is normally overlooked - but IANAL.)
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Ed Jay

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

Brian Cryer scribed:

><hkcat1@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
>news:1155777315.889052.171800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>None of us like a ticking off, but in this case it sounds like your hosting
>company is doing you a service and protecting you from prosecution for
>copyright infringement.
>
>If you need material from other people then obtain their permission first
>and then show that permission to your hosting company. Otherwise stay inside
>the law.
>
>In answer to your last point, if you want a better way to protect your files
>and yet keep them easily accessible: buy a small flash drive and keep your
>files on that instead of hosting them. (This doesn't avoid your obligations
>under copyright law, but if you instead kept a cached copy of the Microsoft
>page you move into the grey area which is normally overlooked - but IANAL.)

I fully agree with all the comments regarding the use of copyright
material. But, wasn't the OP's real question concerns his host accessing
and perusing his confidential files? Is that on par with your banker
looking through your safety deposit boxes?

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

William Tasso

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

Fleeing from the madness of the Posted via Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com jungle
Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

> Brian Cryer scribed:
>
>
> I fully agree with all the comments regarding the use of copyright
> material. But, wasn't the OP's real question concerns his host accessing
> and perusing his confidential files? Is that on par with your banker
> looking through your safety deposit boxes?

on the face of it, yes - but the o/p is silent on whether the host made
this search on their own initiative or if they were prompted by the
copyright holder.

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

veg_all@yahoo.com

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

I may be missing something, but what is wrong with putting a knowledge
base article in your training manual. Aren't these things specific to
the software company so really you are doing them a service by
providing an easier way for users to access it...

Brian Cryer

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
news:2ju8e2tph3u8b0cipb9enu64jj4vv6c0g3@4ax.com...
> Brian Cryer scribed:
>
>
> I fully agree with all the comments regarding the use of copyright
> material. But, wasn't the OP's real question concerns his host accessing
> and perusing his confidential files? Is that on par with your banker
> looking through your safety deposit boxes?

I do take your point (although it could be said that its more akin to having
your hand luggage scanned before you board a plane). Yes, I did focus on the
copyright issue and not the underlying question.

It would be interesting to know what the ISPs terms and conditions state on
this. After all, aren't ISPs potentially liable for the content of some of
the websites they host? so they may have something in their terms and
conditions that covers them. If they aren't covered by their Ts&Cs then I
wonder (pure speculation this) whether that would be grounds for the OP to
take them to court over it? I wonder who the host is, people quite often
mention their host when they are grumbling about them.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

MGW

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

On 17 Aug 2006 08:30:51 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com scrawled:

> I may be missing something, but what is wrong with putting a knowledge
> base article in your training manual. Aren't these things specific to
> the software company so really you are doing them a service by
> providing an easier way for users to access it...

No, you aren't doing them a service. Placing a link to the article,
so that users are directed to their website, is doing them a service.
Alternatively, you can ask for permission to use it in your manual, in
which case you label it "Used with permission."

--
MGW (Note: my Hotmail address is seldom checked)
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. - Douglas Hofstadter

Concreteman

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

hkcat1@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> I have sign up a 1 year contract with them. From the customer service
> and technical service I get. I feel they look into my files casually,
> for example they will report copyright violation to me that they found
> page 253 to 256 of my 400 pages company training menu (a password
> protected PDF) contains knowledge base article from Microsoft web site
> and tell me to remove it!
>
> What I do now is upload password protected rar files with 20 digits
> upper-case lower-case symbol numeric passwords with complete
> meaningless file name and I rename the extension. Is that safe enough?
>
> It is a pain for me to access my own files now, Is there a better way
> to protect my files from the hosting company? and at the same time I
> can access those files easily?

You might want to be happy your hosting company is on the ball about
issues like this. More then likely they were responding to a complaint
made by someone else and not just skimming though a 400 page document
looking for ways to harass you. We look at customers sites and do have
access to all their files, there have been times when we notice items
that don't meet our TOS, at which point we ask them to leave, or
perhaps to comply if it isn't to major.

Next time you agree to a one year contract, read the TOS and make sure
you can comply fully, and yes in many cases you can include articles
with permission which would have taken less time then creating this
thread.

Andy Dingley

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

William Tasso wrote:

> on the face of it, yes - but the o/p is silent on whether the host made
> this search on their own initiative or if they were prompted by the
> copyright holder.

On the face of it, the OP (anonymous, gmail, no posting history) is
wearing a tinfoil hat...

"My ISP breaks crypto on my PDFs to see if I'm breaching M$ecrets"
simply isn't credible, without further background.

For one thing - how may ISPs have geeks who can do this, are bored
enough to want to do this, yet care about _M$oft_ ?
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoon...05&mode=classic

Ed Jay

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

Brian Cryer scribed:

>"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
>news:2ju8e2tph3u8b0cipb9enu64jj4vv6c0g3@4ax.com...
>
>I do take your point (although it could be said that its more akin to having
>your hand luggage scanned before you board a plane).

Or having your ISP decide to look at your financial records?

>Yes, I did focus on the
>copyright issue and not the underlying question.
>
>It would be interesting to know what the ISPs terms and conditions state on
>this. After all, aren't ISPs potentially liable for the content of some of
>the websites they host? so they may have something in their terms and
>conditions that covers them. If they aren't covered by their Ts&Cs then I
>wonder (pure speculation this) whether that would be grounds for the OP to
>take them to court over it? I wonder who the host is, people quite often
>mention their host when they are grumbling about them.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

William Tasso scribed:

>Fleeing from the madness of the Posted via Supernews,
>http://www.supernews.com jungle
>Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
>and said:
>
>
>on the face of it, yes - but the o/p is silent on whether the host made
>this search on their own initiative or if they were prompted by the
>copyright holder.

What difference should that make? If a vengeful creditor complains to the
ISP about one's debt, is the ISP allowed to examine whatever financial
records one has parked on one's site? I don't think so. I personally don't
think a host has a right to examine anything that isn't on a
publicly-accessible web site. If someone has a XXXXX about copyright
protection, or whatever, let them file a lawsuit and obtain a court order
seeking discovery. While a host may be liable for errant information made
public, they certainly have no right to delve into anyone's private files.

If the host's TOS allows them to access one's 'hidden' files, find another
host.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

veg_all@yahoo.com

2006-08-17, 6:47 pm

MGW wrote:
>
> No, you aren't doing them a service. Placing a link to the
article, > so that users are directed to their website, is doing them
> a service.

i cant speak for microsoft, but my clients copy/paste information
from my website to create training manuals for their users. this
saves me and them a lot of money as I am not responsible for training
their users. The training they develop based off my doc's is great.
It's a win-win situation. I could care less if they source it or
pass it off as their own.

i would never host use any host that snoops around my files. when
you look at copyright infringement it only becomes an issue if the
guilty party is profitting off it. i dont see this is the case with
the OP.

MGW

2006-08-17, 6:48 pm

On 17 Aug 2006 09:58:22 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com scrawled:

> MGW wrote:
> article, > so that users are directed to their website, is doing them
>
> i cant speak for microsoft, but my clients copy/paste information
> from my website to create training manuals for their users. this
> saves me and them a lot of money as I am not responsible for training
> their users. The training they develop based off my doc's is great.
> It's a win-win situation. I could care less if they source it or
> pass it off as their own.

But they have your permission. That's the difference. If you'd
quoted my entire post, you'd see that I mentioned that alternative
(i.e., getting permission before copying.) It's fine that you don't
care, but no one has the right to make that assumption without first
cheecking.

I have given many people permission to post my articles on their
websites, as long as I get to see them first and make sure they have
proper attribution. When I find someone using an article without
permission, I contact them to let them know that's not acceptable.

--
MGW (Note: my Hotmail address is seldom checked)
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. - Douglas Hofstadter

William Tasso

2006-08-17, 6:48 pm

Fleeing from the madness of the Posted via Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com jungle
Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

> William Tasso scribed:
>
>
> What difference should that make? If a vengeful creditor complains to the
> ISP about one's debt, is the ISP allowed to examine whatever financial
> records one has parked on one's site? I don't think so. I personally
> don't
> think a host has a right to examine anything that isn't on a
> publicly-accessible web site.

This /is/ the webmaster group and so far as I know we /are/ talking about
a publically accessible web site.

> If someone has a XXXXX about copyright
> protection, or whatever, let them file a lawsuit and obtain a court order
> seeking discovery.

Assumes the site ownership/contact details are clearly
displayed/available. In many cases it is simpler to contact the host
admin.

In my case the sop is to forward the complaint to the client for comment.
I've never had to get involved any further than that. Others may not have
been so fortunate and/or have a different view.

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

hkcat1@gmail.com

2006-08-19, 6:43 pm

OK, I am guilty, I should have asked permission from Microsoft(R) first
before I included the KB articles on how to deal with Windows 98 SE
shutdown problem into our Construction Site Operation Menu. I did
mention Microsoft(R) in that four pages because that four pages are
screen capture of the website. Although I did not steal the credit, I
regret I didn't respect intellectual property right of Microsoft(R) and
I will rewrite the article using my own wording to replace that four KB
pages. Finally I will find a way (I am not a technical guy, I type
with two fingers and read For Dummy series) to remove those 4 pages
from the PDF and insert back my new article into the right place of it.
And I promise I will not infringe any copyright related stuff for the
rest of my life. OK?

Please get back to the problem:

We use the web space to host internal files. Beside that operation
menu, we upload our blue prints, customer contacts, building exterior
design, house interior design, meeting records, phone records and most
office document. So that employees at different construction sites can
access to those material when they need it. The site is not open to
the public, the homepage is a login page protected by a .htaccess file
no high tech intro, no welcome message, just user: and pw: two fields.

The operation menu only trigger me to realize that people from hosting
company search through you files so attentive even a password protected
PDF named Cons_Site_Menu.pdf look suspicious? If they have look into
that menu, I assume they have read through all our customer profile,
our current projects, our future projects. Those are not big secret,
but it is uneasy to imagine that a nightshift staff using Acdsee to
browse through our 2000 interior designs we made from the pass ten
years.

The TOS is a standard one that state no copyright stuff, porn, drug,
political.....etc. Other sites hosted by the same company have sexy
but not nude site, Bulletin sites with thousand of BT links or crack or
serial. I really don't think my four pages KB articles is their
concern. And I don't find any statement that give them the right to
look into my files.

So I still have a 12 months to go.
How can I protect my company data privacy from the hosting company and
at the same time can upload and access our files easily?

Is there any encrytion program that encryt file before upload and
decrypt file after download? In a transparent, auto, background way?

Once again, my question is:
/***How can I protect my company data's privacy from the hosting
company and at the same time can upload and access our files
easily?***/

Please do not ask me to change to a better hosting company, this one I
am using has the fastest transfer rate, ulimited storage and bandwidth.

And don't critcize my English because you feel like typing something
but don't have a suggestion to give.

PDF(R). is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems, Inc. Microsoft(R).
is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Google Group(TM).
is a registered trademark of Google(R), Inc. All other product names
mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners. not
mine.

Jerry Stuckle

2006-08-19, 6:44 pm

hkcat1@XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> OK, I am guilty, I should have asked permission from Microsoft(R) first
> before I included the KB articles on how to deal with Windows 98 SE
> shutdown problem into our Construction Site Operation Menu. I did
> mention Microsoft(R) in that four pages because that four pages are
> screen capture of the website. Although I did not steal the credit, I
> regret I didn't respect intellectual property right of Microsoft(R) and
> I will rewrite the article using my own wording to replace that four KB
> pages. Finally I will find a way (I am not a technical guy, I type
> with two fingers and read For Dummy series) to remove those 4 pages
> from the PDF and insert back my new article into the right place of it.
> And I promise I will not infringe any copyright related stuff for the
> rest of my life. OK?
>
> Please get back to the problem:
>
> We use the web space to host internal files. Beside that operation
> menu, we upload our blue prints, customer contacts, building exterior
> design, house interior design, meeting records, phone records and most
> office document. So that employees at different construction sites can
> access to those material when they need it. The site is not open to
> the public, the homepage is a login page protected by a .htaccess file
> no high tech intro, no welcome message, just user: and pw: two fields.
>
> The operation menu only trigger me to realize that people from hosting
> company search through you files so attentive even a password protected
> PDF named Cons_Site_Menu.pdf look suspicious? If they have look into
> that menu, I assume they have read through all our customer profile,
> our current projects, our future projects. Those are not big secret,
> but it is uneasy to imagine that a nightshift staff using Acdsee to
> browse through our 2000 interior designs we made from the pass ten
> years.
>
> The TOS is a standard one that state no copyright stuff, porn, drug,
> political.....etc. Other sites hosted by the same company have sexy
> but not nude site, Bulletin sites with thousand of BT links or crack or
> serial. I really don't think my four pages KB articles is their
> concern. And I don't find any statement that give them the right to
> look into my files.
>
> So I still have a 12 months to go.
> How can I protect my company data privacy from the hosting company and
> at the same time can upload and access our files easily?
>
>
> Is there any encrytion program that encryt file before upload and
> decrypt file after download? In a transparent, auto, background way?
>
> Once again, my question is:
> /***How can I protect my company data's privacy from the hosting
> company and at the same time can upload and access our files
> easily?***/
>
> Please do not ask me to change to a better hosting company, this one I
> am using has the fastest transfer rate, ulimited storage and bandwidth.
>
> And don't critcize my English because you feel like typing something
> but don't have a suggestion to give.
>
>
> PDF(R). is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems, Inc. Microsoft(R).
> is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Google Group(TM).
> is a registered trademark of Google(R), Inc. All other product names
> mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners. not
> mine.
>

The bottom line is - it is their system and they have whatever access
they want to it. Additionally, other sites on the server may be able to
access your information on a shared host.

The bottom line is - don't store private/sensitive data on someone
else's server. Get your own server, a fast internet connection and a
locked room to keep it in (or a data center which allows you physical
access to manage your server - and lock it down).

If you want to store private or sensitive information on someone else's
server, encrypt it and don't store the key on the server.

And no, there are no programs which will do your encryption/decryption
transparently, AFAIK.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

veg_all@yahoo.com

2006-08-19, 6:44 pm

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The bottom line is - don't store private/sensitive data on someone
> else's server. Get your own server, a fast internet connection and a
> locked room to keep it in (or a data center which allows you physical
> access to manage your server - and lock it down).

I would disagree that getting your own server is any more secure than a
shared environement. The reason is a shared environment is used by
hundreds of sites so admins are much more on their toes to keeping
things updated and secure. If you have yuor own server, chances are it
is not going to be given nearly the same priority as teh shared server
.. A shared server could generate thousands of dollars of month in
income for a web host compared so just $100 for a dedicated server.
Obviously they are going to do more to ensure the shared sytem is more
secure and patches up to date.

also on a shared environemtn, you get the advantage of security by
obscurity. nobody is going to snoop through the nearly 1000 domains on
each server to see if there is anything of value to hack.

I do agree that encryption is good, but even if the key is not stored
on your server, a hacker just needs to insert a few lines of code into
your scripts to print out what the key is when a user accesses it.

Jerry Stuckle

2006-08-19, 6:44 pm

veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> I would disagree that getting your own server is any more secure than a
> shared environement. The reason is a shared environment is used by
> hundreds of sites so admins are much more on their toes to keeping
> things updated and secure. If you have yuor own server, chances are it
> is not going to be given nearly the same priority as teh shared server
> . A shared server could generate thousands of dollars of month in
> income for a web host compared so just $100 for a dedicated server.
> Obviously they are going to do more to ensure the shared sytem is more
> secure and patches up to date.
>

Definitely more secure. You can have total control over access to the
files on the computer. You can set it up so that no one other than you
can access the server.

On a shared server there are always admins who can access the server -
and every single file on the server.

And no, they are not going to manage the server. It is your server, and
you manage it. It's the only way you can be secure.

> also on a shared environemtn, you get the advantage of security by
> obscurity. nobody is going to snoop through the nearly 1000 domains on
> each server to see if there is anything of value to hack.
>

It wouldn't take much for me to access your web site, if we were on the
same server. And security by obscurity is none at all.

And I would NEVER host with someone who put 1,000 sites on the same server!

> I do agree that encryption is good, but even if the key is not stored
> on your server, a hacker just needs to insert a few lines of code into
> your scripts to print out what the key is when a user accesses it.
>

Not if he can't access your server, he can't.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

William Tasso

2006-08-19, 6:44 pm

Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> stumbled into
news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

>
> It wouldn't take much for me to access your web site, if we were on the
> same server.

Not wishing to start a religious ding ding, but I think you'll find that
is more generally true in a *n*x environment than windows. Before anyone
feels the need to get up on their hind legs and paw the air, let me make
it clear that either type of o/s can be made insecure internally - just
apply the correct level of clueless admin, rinse & repeat.

>
> And I would NEVER host with someone who put 1,000 sites on the same
> server!

Why not? Of course, 1000 busy sites could be an issue, but a random
selection of 1000 domains is unlikely to stress even the most gutless box.

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

Jerry Stuckle

2006-08-19, 10:43 pm

William Tasso wrote:
> Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> stumbled into
> news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
>
> Not wishing to start a religious ding ding, but I think you'll find
> that is more generally true in a *n*x environment than windows. Before
> anyone feels the need to get up on their hind legs and paw the air, let
> me make it clear that either type of o/s can be made insecure
> internally - just apply the correct level of clueless admin, rinse &
> repeat.
>

The problem is, William, that there is one Apache server listening on
Port 80 of that particular IP address. It has one userid.

That means that if you and I were on the same server, both of us would
be running under the same Apache user id. So I can access any of your
files, because there is only one Apache. And it isn't hard for me to
list directories in PHP, for instance.

>
>
> Why not? Of course, 1000 busy sites could be an issue, but a random
> selection of 1000 domains is unlikely to stress even the most gutless box.
>

I wouldn't want to be within 50 Gb of a host who would put that many
sites on one server. Sure, Apache could handle that many mostly idle
sites. But how many websites can you predict will be low traffic? And
what happens if a couple of those had spikes in their traffic - say due
to an advertising pitch.

IMHO you're playing with customers to place that many on a single server.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

William Tasso

2006-08-20, 3:34 am

Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> stumbled into
news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

> William Tasso wrote:
>
> The problem is, William, that there is one Apache server listening on
> Port 80 of that particular IP address. It has one userid.

I am familiar the issues and frankly astonished that a server which is so
easy to secure from the outside is so open on the inside.

> That means that if you and I were on the same server, both of us would
> be running under the same Apache user id. So I can access any of your
> files, because there is only one Apache. And it isn't hard for me to
> list directories in PHP, for instance.

Oh yes, I know. There's a directive in PHP which prevents that (if set)
but the hole is still open in other languages.

>
> I wouldn't want to be within 50 Gb of a host who would put that many
> sites on one server. Sure, Apache could handle that many mostly idle
> sites. But how many websites can you predict will be low traffic? And
> what happens if a couple of those had spikes in their traffic - say due
> to an advertising pitch.

Spikes in traffic potentially affect any other site on the same feed.
Moreover, internal process/traffic can have a similar effect. I've just
implemented a private network for one customer with six servers - their
inter-process (across servers) traffic was considerably greater than their
external traffic (poorly optimised db calls I suspect) and was affecting
all other customers sites on the same feed - increasing ping times to over
80ms (from here).

> IMHO you're playing with customers to place that many on a single server.

In practice I share your opinion, but I know[*] there are many servers
containing more sites than that.

[*] Well you can't actually /know/ - they could all be proxied from the
same Apache (or similar).
--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp