Hi,
As most of you know, the CIDR Report was conceived by Tony Bates in 1995 as
a means to monitor and inform the community about the amount of CIDRisation
activities being carried out by Internet Service Providers.
The CIDR Report has been highly successful, much referred to and well
Rob Mitzel wrote:
So my question is...what's out there that will allow us to check
thresholds on traffic, and notify us if needed?
RMON alarms and events for one. These are available on pretty much all
recent versions of IOS. You can set a rising or falling threshhold on
any MIB variable
## On 2002-08-25 23:54 -0700 Rob Mitzel typed:
RM
RM Hi everyone,
RM
RM Quick question. We're currently using MRTG to monitor traffic on a
RM number of cisco switches connected to various customers. Now, this is
RM all great and everything, except there's no real way to monitor if a
RM
Here's Big brother...now we're all going to be spies on our fellow citizens.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,481112,00.asp
August 23, 2002
By Caron Carlson and Dennis Fisher
In an effort to bolster the nation's cyber-security, the Bush
administration has plans to create a centralized
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:40 AM +0100 2002/08/23, Martin Cooper wrote:
How does it break mailing-lists? If the list sets the envelope sender
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] creating a MAIL-FROM shouldn't
be a problem.
You may be surprised to discover this, but most
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Cooper) writes:
OK - but unconditionally permitting null-return paths means that
spammers can drive a coach and horses through the hole it leaves. :-(
that's how the proposal is optional. spammers who lie about their
source/return addresses using nonexistent domain
Yo Rob!
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Rob Mitzel wrote:
So my question is...what's out there that will allow us to check
thresholds on traffic, and notify us if needed?
I use Nagios: http://www.nagios.org. It used to be called Netsaint.
If it does not do exactly what you want then you can easily
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Cooper) writes:
OK - but unconditionally permitting null-return paths means that
spammers can drive a coach and horses through the hole it
leaves. :-(
that's how the proposal is optional. spammers who lie about their
source/return
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:12:40 +0200, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IMHO, Paul's idea is quite a good one, but all servers will need to be
upgraded, and all dns entries installed.
Given the number of providers who seem to think ingress and/or rfc1918
filtering shouldn't be done, what
Hello,
If anyone from sprint who can remove a route can contact me off line I
would appreciate it. Trying to switch providers since sprintbiz dsl is
being discontinued I need to have an announcement stopped.
Thanks,
Michael...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
go call or email sprint.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: sprint biz dsl provisioning contact
Hello,
If anyone from sprint who can remove a route can
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 13:43, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Read my sentence again, because I really won't see everybody install/use
it.
One can also simply see so by the problems related to the fact of
installing security updates.
Some 'companies' and individuals are simply too sleezy/lousy or
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 04:07:11PM -0700, Dr. Mosh wrote:
Wonder if anyone of you have come across the need for this.
They have. Ask your vendor to implement the BGP MIB version 2.
If useful things are missing from this MIB, now is a good time to
ask for them.
David Van Duzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
The presumably appropriate topic for discussion on this list is why
a system such as this would be a problem for network operators who
choose not to implement such a callback feature. So far the only
objection I've seen is It won't make any
Point of Information:
Every single purely technical approach to stopping spam has been a
complete loser.
I understand the old adage that when all you have is a hammer the
whole world looks like a nail.
And that all many people on this list have is a technical hammer, some
ability to hack
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 15:47, Scott Gifford wrote:
The problem that this deals with is the user who needs to dial in to
AOL and send mail from their corporate account. The proposed solution
is to tunnel mail through the corporate server, by proving your right
to relay via SMTP AUTH or else
David Van Duzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 15:47, Scott Gifford wrote:
The problem that this deals with is the user who needs to dial in to
AOL and send mail from their corporate account. The proposed solution
is to tunnel mail through the corporate server, by
At 9:12 PM +0200 2002/08/26, Jeroen Massar wrote:
ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
Agreed.
This will force people to use their upstreams email address though when
sending email outbound.
Yup.
At 3:26 PM +0100 2002/08/26, Martin Cooper wrote:
return nonrepudiated;
OK - but unconditionally permitting null-return paths means that
spammers can drive a coach and horses through the hole it leaves. :-(
IIRC, the RFCs
ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
Agreed.
why not do it to port 80 as well? what the hell, why not do it to all
ports? who the hell needs an internet anyway, let's all have a telco
walled garden.
string of
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP
segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the
packet is addressed to, whether the destination port of those TCP segments
is 25 or something
Randy Bush wrote:
ISP's should actually block port 25 outgoing, or even better,
reroute/forward it to their own mail relay.
Agreed.
why not do it to port 80 as well? what the hell, why not do it to all
ports? who the hell needs an internet anyway, let's all have a telco
walled
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Moreover, even if all servers on the Internet were secured in
this manner and there were no open relays, it would also require
perfect reverse DNS because the MXes are listed by name and not IP
address -- that's assuming you do a reverse
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:59:49 +0200
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice rant Randy, but if you even ever wondered why the wording Mail
Relay exists you might see that if an
ISP simply forwards all outgoing tcp port 25 traffic to one of their
relays and protects that from weird spam
On August 27, 2002 at 00:59 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote:
We didn't invent stuff like SMTP, POP3, IMAP and stuff to be run on
EVERY single node on the internet.
Actually, I think we did.
Unfortunately it turned out to be a really, really, bad decision.
--
-Barry
On 03:07 PM 8/26/02, Barry Shein wrote:
Let me throw out the following to show how blind the technical
community has been:
There is no RFC or other public standards document which even attempts
to define spam or explain, in a careful and professional manner,
why it is a bad thing.
-- Forwarded message --
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pimout5-ext.prodigy.net (pimout5-ext.prodigy.net
[207.115.63.98])
by cliff.mfn.org (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g7R0XNc65241
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:33:23 -0500 (CDT)
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:54:39 +0200
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SMTP is a protocol which is based on relaying messages from one
mailserver to another.
An endnode (especially workstations) don't need to run SMTP.
I'm not sure how to truly disable an SMTP server from running on an
Force forward by default, but allow anyone who wants to use TCP port
25 the ability to do so. They must sign an non-abuse agreement or
whatever. Then they get their host/link put into the TCP port 25 open
path.
Every ISP I have ever worked for and every ISP I have ever used has
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:14:46PM +1000, Martin wrote:
but surely an MTA derives it's usefulness by running on port 25. i don't
remember reading about where in the DNS MX RR you could specify what port
the MTA would be listening on...
Surely your not a spammer looking for tips are you? :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Martin
Sent: August 26, 2002 10:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group
Proposal at smtpng.org)
but surely an MTA derives it's usefulness by
As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP
segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the
packet is addressed to, ...
...and, occasionally, your ISP's abuse desk. If this function of your ISP
costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000 dialups
Every single purely technical approach to stopping spam has been a
complete loser.
In the fullness of time, the universe itself will die of heat. So what?
What matters more is what use is made of time before it gets so full. A
number of purely technical approaches to stopping spam have
$author = John Kristoff ;
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:14:46PM +1000, Martin wrote:
but surely an MTA derives it's usefulness by running on port 25. i don't
remember reading about where in the DNS MX RR you could specify what port
the MTA would be listening on...
Surely your not a
On 27 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP
segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the
packet is addressed to, ...
...and, occasionally, your ISP's abuse desk. If this function of your ISP
If this function of your ISP costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000
dialups or 1,000 T1's or 100 T3's, then your ISP is a slacker and
probably a magnet for professional spammers as well.
... you're offering very definitive figures/labeling, and I'm curious
as to what you are basing your
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 21:08, Paul Vixie wrote:
...and, occasionally, your ISP's abuse desk. If this function of your ISP
costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000 dialups or 1,000 T1's or 100 T3's, then your
ISP is a slacker and probably a magnet for professional spammers as well. If
Not to try to
as joe pointed out to me privately RFC 2782 specifies SRV RRs which could be
used to point an MX.SRV at a port other then 25. anyone got any examples of
MTAs or MUAs that implement said RFC?
actually it would be _smtp._tcp.$DOMAIN but it's not in use for e-mail.
or web, even though that's
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
If this function of your ISP costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000
dialups or 1,000 T1's or 100 T3's, then your ISP is a slacker and
probably a magnet for professional spammers as well.
... you're offering very definitive figures/labeling, and I'm
Barry, I have a wrench :) Everything looks like a nut to me.
But in all seriousness. I have to agree with Barry's statement
here. Spam is very much a social, political, ethical, and financial
issue.
Filters are static things, that have to be updated, and can't see every
case that comes
40 matches
Mail list logo
