Actually, I think that was the point of the dynamic provisioning
ability. The UNI 1.0 protocol or the previous ODSI, were to allow the
routers to provision their own capacity. The tests in the real world
done actually worked although I still believe they are under NDA.
The point was to
We need to narrow down the recommended choices, preferably to one
per service.
I'm seeing a lot of SMTP-AUTH and pop-before-smtp (which can easily
coexist on the same server) on port 587. Current versions of popular
MTAs all seem to support at least one of those, albeit sometimes
not very
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:52:57PM -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
how/why is this proposed group distinct from the European Operator Forum?
Bill, Nicolas Deffayet just wanted a NOG for himself. Let him play.
For those who are not members
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Erik-Jan Bos wrote:
As in the output below when you go to their web site?
http://www.euronog.org/ returns a page for me.
Henk
--
Henk Uijterwaal Email: [EMAIL
Henk,
http://www.euronog.org/ returns a page for me.
Go to Sponsers and click on the one and only sponsor.
__
Erik-Jan.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Subhi S Hashwa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:52:57PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how/why is this proposed group distinct from the European Operator Forum?
Do you have a URL for the above forum? google isn't returning anything
useful.
From: ren
*top post corrected*
At 08:54 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
What systems/processes do you use to track all of this
information, and associate it to overall business success?
Customers Happy + (Bean Counter
At 01:07 AM 2/4/2003, Dave Crocker wrote:
JC,
Monday, February 3, 2003, 9:43:01 PM, you wrote:
JD Dave Crocker wrote:
Recently I had protracted discussions with a number of Ops folks about
this issue and have chosen to drop that debate. I do not agree with
blocking port 25, either, but am
On 4 Feb 2003, John R. Levine wrote:
It would be nice if we could use SMTP-AUTH on port 25, but the
spammers ruined that for us around the same time they ruined courtesy
relay.
How did they ruin SMTP Auth? Thanks.
andy
--
PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
From: Daniel Senie
The question this raises is whether you're concerned about MTA to MTA
communication, or MUA to MTA? I'd be happy to see certs in use for MTA-MTA
(and indeed support this today on my systems when talking to other MTAs
which are using STARTTLS). However, there are definitely
From: Andy Walden
On 4 Feb 2003, John R. Levine wrote:
It would be nice if we could use SMTP-AUTH on port 25, but the
spammers ruined that for us around the same time they ruined courtesy
relay.
How did they ruin SMTP Auth? Thanks.
ip access-list 100 deny ip any any eq 25
Jack,
Tuesday, February 4, 2003, 7:16:04 AM, you wrote:
JB From: Daniel Senie
I'd be happy to see certs in use for MTA-MTA
(and indeed support this today on my systems when talking to other MTAs
which are using STARTTLS).
...
JB I'm concerned with MTA to MTA. ... A flag day is
JB necessary,
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Now the $64M question is which NMS system will allow you to calculate that
in RealTime? ;)
Honestly. We did it with Nagios. www.nagios.org
It keeps the bean counters happy. And with good notes on the specific
outages we can account for the down time
From: Dave Crocker
A flag day is not possible for changing the infrastructure of any
network operation that is large. Even when there is a single authority,
service operators cannot perform a conversion instantly.
That is true. However, there comes a day when enough people are
Anyone know of a master ticket for latency on ATT's Dallas
network? Looks like they have some routing problems this
morning. We see traceroutes hit 2sec latency at various
hops in their Dallas network. Anyone else see this?
Wouldnt normally post a note like this but having trouble getting
You have a laptop because you travel. You have multiple accounts to
assure you have connectivity wherever you travel. Every time you
connect, you have to adjust your mail client settings based on the whims
of the provider you're using at that moment. Starts to be a pain if you
travel a lot. Yes,
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Al Rowland said:
Only convenient kludge that is (mostly) provider independent is a
webmail service, a completely different can of worms/flame war.
Or a shell account at Panix, reached via SSH.
$100.00/year is worth it to me; YMMV.
--
A
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:05:17 EST, Daniel Senie said:
This is, IMO, unworkable in the near term. While I support and promote the
use of TLS with SMTP (and POP), requiring client certs is likely too
cumbersome for users to manage at this stage. Using STARTTLS to transition
clients to an
Don't even need that. I can telnet into the appropriate server/port from
a command prompt but, like your solution below, that is not non-geek
friendly. We need a solution that is AOL user friendly, not NANOG user
friendly if we ever expect to make money with this thing called the
Internet. This
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Al Rowland said:
Don't even need that. I can telnet into the appropriate server/port from
a command prompt but, like your solution below, that is not non-geek
friendly. We need a solution that is AOL user friendly, not NANOG user
friendly if we
Blocking direct-from-dialup spam is best done on the receiving end,
blocking *unauthenticated* SMTP connections made directly from dial-up
IPs.
If there were a definitive list of dialup and DHCP IP ranges, I might
agree. But after some years of compiling the MAPS DUL, Pan Am's PDL, the
Al,
Tuesday, February 4, 2003, 10:20:50 AM, you wrote:
AR Don't even need that. I can telnet into the appropriate server/port
1. as you note, that is a solution that does not scale to millions of non-technical
users.
2. many people need access from their laptops (ie, their office),
rather
John,
Tuesday, February 4, 2003, 10:50:14 AM, you wrote:
IMHO, to block ALL outbound port 25 traffic
on the sending end is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
JRL It certainly is, but for most ISPs, there's a very small baby in a huge
JRL tub of spam. Remember that this whole question
It appears that the policy of blocking outbound port 25 has been adopted
much more broadly. It is not just folks running dial-in services. At a
minimum, anyone with visitors -- no matter how they connect -- is a
candidate for embracing the blocking philosophy.
I can believe it. If I were
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 11:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As requested by Pascal Gloor on EuroNOG mailing-list, i reply to
Stephane's message.
Flames co /dev/null
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:52:57PM -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 02:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh! Sorry, we didn't know Jim FLEMING was behind it. I'm sure we're all glad to be
thus reassured of its bona fides.
Jim FLEMING is not a EuroNOG founder.
Jim FLEMING is just a subscriber of the mailing-list.
We know who is Jim FLEMING,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:27:46AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
--On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 18:06:47 -0800 Scott Francis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure
they'll move to a newer version when somebody on the team gets a chance
to give it a thorough code audit, and run it
My co-Bill, the estimable Mr. Manning wrote:
how/why is this proposed group distinct from the European
Operator Forum?
Mr. DEFAYET replied:
NDSoftware exist.
Mike CHENEY exist.
EuroNOG is neutral.
However, I'm not sure that actually constituted an answer
Do you have a URL for the above forum? google isn't returning anything useful.
http://www.ripe.net/ but don't worry you aren't missing much [anything?]
--
Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
29 matches
Mail list logo
