Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Not yet indeed, unfortunatly. The RIR prefixes under ip6.int, at least
for RIPE, seem to exist though if they don't take it up with them.
RIPE does require 2 mails to marvin, one for ip6.int and one for ip6.arpa.
Just to clarify, two domain objects
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 00:36:19 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
or just put http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt into effect.
I am confused. Are DNAMEs deprecated or not (RFC3363, section 4)?
rvdp
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 00:36:19 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
or just put http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt into effect.
I am confused. Are DNAMEs deprecated or not (RFC3363, section 4)?
rvdp
RFC 3363 does NOT say that DNAME
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Mark Andrews wrote:
RFC 3363 does NOT say that DNAME is deprecated. All it says
is that since A6 was moving the exprimental using DNAME to
support renumbering is deprecated.
Which part of:
Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to
Having been present at the meeting that gave rise to the document (at
the IETF meetings held in London, August 2001), I'd say that the
material quoted in the document is at fault. (There was quite a lot
of controversy at the meeting, perhaps my recollection isn't shared
with all others. But
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, williamatelan.net wrote:
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. There's a huge
difference.
Are you well enough versed in the political science to define and
understand the differences? If you're you'll know that there is no and
never been any true
Cool tool! It's amazing to see BGP in action and what 'really' happens. A
comment: could you define the number of prefixes a little more? E.g., is it
the total imported and exported across the link, imported only, exported
only, context dependent, etc.
Thanks!
Joe Loiacono
or just put http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt into effect.
I am confused. Are DNAMEs deprecated or not (RFC3363, section 4)?
A6 and bitstring labels are deprecated. DNAME remains in full force.
I'm looking for comments on whether this is generally seen as a
positive change or a waste
of time (ie - will the next virus or worm gleam your SMTP username and
password from
Outlook Express and use it to replicate/SPAM)?
We are planning on moving the same way. Without a doubt, a new
Is anyone aware of any well known mail clients that do not support
SMTP authentication (Unix, Windows or Mac)?
I'm not an ISP, but I know some users here who have wireless Internet
on their mobile phones have complained in the past they can't send
e-mail if you have SMTP AUTH only (as
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Arnold Nipper wrote:
: On 11.02.2004 00:43 Scott Weeks wrote:
: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote:
:
: : I've look at IANA but it doesn't give enough detailed information. I
: : would like to find a list of /8 or /16s and what geographic region the
: : exist in.
Does anyone on the list have any opinions on the adtran total access
1200 using Inverse Multiplexing over ATM.
Tracey Webb
Network Operations
Cameron Communications, LLC
337-775-3097 Office
337-583-2097
337-493-4894 page
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FCC# PG-GB-022338
: I'm however pursuing this issue futher and see it as that rather then
: developing this into one-one relationship between ip and country, it might
: be better provide several countries where there is good possibility that
: this ip is being used. For example if some ip block is allocated by
:
Adi,
AL We're relying exclusively on SMTP AUTH for SMTP relaying.
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to access your server and do the auth.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to access your server and do the auth.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fgrep submission /etc/services
submission 587/tcp # submission
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to access your server and do the auth.
Port 587.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to access your server and do the auth.
Port
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 03:13:30PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:13:30 EST, Sean Donelan said:
So is it time for ISPs to start blocking port 587 too?
RFC2476 says:
3.2. Message Rejection and Bouncing
MTAs and MSAs MAY implement message rejection rules that rely in part
on whether the message is a submission or a relay.
For
or just put http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt into effect.
I am confused. Are DNAMEs deprecated or not (RFC3363, section 4)?
A6 and bitstring labels are deprecated. DNAME remains in full force.
last i heard from you, you said that DNAME would be evaluated by
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or should we just say Submit mail via webmail, let's see the ISP block
*THAT*?
*THAT* has been suggested, and there are vendors trying to sell boxes to
ISPs that would allow them to block mail submission via webmail (or
wiretap mail submission via
... http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt ...
last i heard from you, you said that DNAME would be evaluated by recursive
resolver and will not be visible to end client... what changed?
according to this experiment:
+---
| ;; QUESTION SECTION:
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Lewis) writes:
...
DNAME was kind of the third record in. The change in it's status
pertained to the role it played in supporting bit sting labels -
which is why the reverse tree is mentioned in the deprecation.
Looking at the document now, the document ought to
At 03:13 PM 2/11/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to
Having been present at the meeting that gave rise to the document (at
the IETF meetings held in London, August 2001), I'd say that the
material quoted in the document is at fault. (There was quite a lot
of controversy at the meeting, perhaps my recollection isn't shared
with all
The following is an autoresponse I have been forced to make in my email
client. I get, on average, 1-2 emails per week since I originally posted
here asking for help with my own att.net blacklisting woes. That was in
*August*. I posted this here once before, in hopes that perhaps it would
get
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
Why, to restrain trade? To forbid people from using AUTHENTICATED services
of their mail provider of choice? Why shouldn't users be able to hire an
Email service provider who might have a LOT more clue about how to run
email services than the broadband
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Paul Vixie wrote:
SNIP
the type is defined and at least one authority server
implementation will synthesize protocol-compliant CNAME RRs
in the presence of DNAMEs, and so
the approach documented at www.isc.org/pubs/tn/ will
universally work OK.
In that
... http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-1.txt ...
last i heard from you, you said that DNAME would be evaluated by recursive
resolver and will not be visible to end client... what changed?
according to this experiment:
+---
| ;; QUESTION SECTION:
|
[itojun]
i understand some implementation (BIND 9.3?) does this,
i think it's all bind9, but certainly all bind 9.2 and later.
but is the behavior documented somewhere in the set of RFCs?
yes. marka just quoted all of that.
for instance, does djbdns do it? does MS DNS server do it?
--On 11 February 2004 16:30 -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I applaud your effort. But does it really answer the question of who
is responsible for handling abuse of the service? If ISP's are not
responsible for abuse using port 573, they probably don't care.
I think you are
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
I think you are missing the point. I have lots of people abusing my port
25. They can abuse this due to the nature of the (current unadorned) SMTP
protocol as I have to leave it open and unauthenticated in order to receive
mail to users served by my
--On 11 February 2004 19:45 -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bulk of the abuse (some people estimate 2/3's) is due to compromised
computers. The owner of the computer doesn't know it is doing it.
Unfortunately, once the computer is compromised any information on that
computer is
Will Yardley wrote:
My understanding is that in most cases, providers are blocking port 25
outbound to prevent direct to MX spamming from their customers' machines
If you do that, please put in a corresponding ACL to block port 25
inbound _and_ outbound.
Otherwise, you just might get bitten by
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
: as a practical matter, it is impossible to ensure that all name servers
: and resolvers understand DNAME. but it is very possible to ensure that
: a given zone, such as 8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa in ISC's case, is only
: served by authority servers who
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 03:13:30PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from
---
Subject: ATTN: Anyone with RBL clue at att.net
Something must be highly broken at ATT. I have been receiving tons of
emails in response to a Usenet posting I made months ago asking if anyone
knew how to get out of att.net's private RBL.
You might try writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mm
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
: as a practical matter, it is impossible to ensure that all name servers
: and resolvers understand DNAME. but it is very possible to ensure that
: a given zone, such as 8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa in ISC's case, is only
: served by authority
38 matches
Mail list logo
