[...]
Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net
zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from
10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
being added now. We have prepared a white paper describing VeriSign's
wildcard
FYI
- Original Message -
From: George William Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallo
Colt Italy blocks us on the mail side. So far, our requests for more
information to Colt Italy's abuse and postmaster remained unanswered (or
returned as non deliverables). Can someone point me to the right place
or forward it colt-internally?
The message we get is:
553 sorry, that domain
hi alain
i dont know anyone @ colt italy.
but you might ask
Ron Daniel
COLT Telecom
42 Adler Street
London E1 1EE
UK
E-Mail: ron [at] colt [dot] net
he is the one who set up the peering with us in switzerland.
i have also (from the peering contract) these NOC informations:
24x7 NOC phone:
I'll ask someone to look into this.
--
Neil J. McRae - COLT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 September 2003 10:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [swinog] Colt Italien
Hallo
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 11:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The message we get is:
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Isn't that a general problem with their qmail installation? This error
means, that the server does not accept the recipients domain,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net
zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from
10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
being added now. We have prepared a white paper describing
VeriSign's
looks like an mx pointing to our server without
the relevent qmail config. yes.
--
Neil J. McRae - COLT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Blaser
Sent: 16 September 2003 10:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Fredy Kuenzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
I'm gonna register *.ch and *.li now. Some extra traffic is rather nice
(a lot of $$$banners and $$$popups), isn't it?
*.ch for Fredy is fine with me - and *.com and *.net for versign also.
Because I will take .*
nik
*.ch for Fredy is fine with me - and *.com and *.net for versign also.
Because I will take .*
Makes nice mail addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
-- Matthias
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
Makes nice mail addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
r@@t is even better and is RFC compliant.. as t is the TLD and r@ the
alias (yes @ is allowed in the alias :-P)
Pascal
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive:
Hi
Thanks all, folks.
This one looks like a very valid point. I'll check back if there is
indeed a wrong MX defined...
Cheers,
Alain
-Original Message-
From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog]
Matthias Leisi wrote:
*.ch for Fredy is fine with me - and *.com and *.net for versign also.
Because I will take .*
Makes nice mail addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
No prob, we show a lot of valid mail addrs with the storage folder
/dev/null %-]
F.
Benoit Panizzon wrote:
Scheint als habe es nun auch die gelupft...
openrbl ist wegen DDOS Down...
Seit einigen Stunden habe ich keine Mails mehr erhalten. Nun ist die Ursache
klar: Dorkslayers listet alles und deren Website ist tot.
Weiss jemand mehr?
Nein, nur dass wir Mailsubscriber (z.B.
Am Die, 2003-09-16 um 11.42 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hallo
Colt Italy blocks us on the mail side. So far, our requests for more
information to Colt Italy's abuse and postmaster remained unanswered (or
returned as non deliverables). Can someone point me to the right place
or forward it
Maybe the problem of the orbs.dorkslayers.com RBL having disappeared
from DNS and now every address of the form 1.2.3.4.orbs.dorkslayers.com
resolving to Verisigns search engine and thus resulting in a positive
hit...
remove the maybe and you got your answer...
Everyone running multiple RBL
nanog is slow... :-P
however, what do our swiss majors think about this?
Pascal
- Original Message -
From: Pascal Gloor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Verisign HOWTO
http://www.hinterlands.org/ver/txt
It's a 'How to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:33, Matthias Leisi wrote:
*.ch for Fredy is fine with me - and *.com and *.net for versign also.
Because I will take .*
Makes nice mail addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
another bad thing about this stupid idea is that the
reject_unknown_sender_domain rules in the
I've written a patch to qmail's dns lookup routines to detect the
wildcard responses from Verisign and convert it internally back into
a NX_DOMAIN. I think the same dynamic strategy can also be used for
Postfix and Sendwhale.
-- read on here --
With Verisigns wildcard match for any
I've written a patch to qmail's dns lookup routines to detect the
wildcard responses from Verisign and convert it internally back into
a NX_DOMAIN. I think the same dynamic strategy can also be used for
Postfix and Sendwhale.
This is good Andre, but it looks more like a patch (in its 1st
Pascal Gloor wrote:
I've written a patch to qmail's dns lookup routines to detect the
wildcard responses from Verisign and convert it internally back into
a NX_DOMAIN. I think the same dynamic strategy can also be used for
Postfix and Sendwhale.
This is good Andre, but it looks more
I agree,
I would say that we have to react first to avoid any beahviour
that can pollute the Net anymore.
I will also think about some patches this week end.
then we can maybe find a more political solution.
however the consequences of the versigin behaviour
won't be politically discussed before
We seem to experience quite a bit of ICMP DOS attacks. The come along in
waves, which makes some devices within our backbone stumble and loosing
packets.
As ICMP should generally not be blocked, I'm thinking about rate
limiting it on core routers. Any hints, links, suggestions?
Thanks
Fredy
* Fredy Kuenzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We seem to experience quite a bit of ICMP DOS attacks. The come along in
waves, which makes some devices within our backbone stumble and loosing
packets.
DoS, or the well known nacchi worm? (Nacchi uses 92byte Packets
exclusively, so it should be easy to
Some stuff I found around...
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A996-2003Sep12.html
...
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which
manages the Internet's addressing system and oversees
25 matches
Mail list logo