Hey!
New message, please read <http://alexanderandbrown.com/waiting.php?2fsb>
Scott Howard
Hey!
New message, please read <http://thc420.net/sweet.php?dqk>
Scott Howard
Hey!
New message, please read <http://gjstspt.com/paper.php?zhg>
Scott Howard
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn
wrote:
>
> If they can e-mail you your existing password (*cough*Netgear*cough*),
> it means they are storing your credentials in the database
> un-encrypted.
>
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means they are storing it unhashed
which is pro
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> You left out the authority section that refers you to the correct DNS
> servers - ns[1-6].hp.com are not it. They delegate to another set of HP
> servers, which all time out (as stated by the OP) when asked for .
>
Actually the OP said th
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Dear HP:
>
> If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return SRVFAIL when
> asked for an record:
>
They aren't. Your resolver is - or at least, that's what it looks like for
me.
Sending an query to their nameserver
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> why does this list break DKIM when forwarding?
>
>From the Gmail headers your email :
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com:
nanog-bounces+scott=example.com@nanog.orgdoes not designate permitted
sender host
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:39 PM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> BAE did this cute poster on the attack model
>
> https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/6f0027d2-
> c58c-11e3-af1f-12313d0148e5-original.jpeg?goback=%2Egde_1271127_member_
> 5862330295302262788
I'm guessing accuracy probably wasn't their primary
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> If the hardware (as has been suggested) or the OS does any of this, how do
> diagnostic routine in or running under the OS work?
>
The OS does it, when allocating memory to userland programs.
For memory, before memory is allocated to a new
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Matthew Black wrote:
> Seriously? When files are deleted, their sectors are simply released to
> the free space pool without erasing their contents. Allocation of disk
> sectors without clearing them gives users/programs access to file contents
> previously stored
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Is the heartbleed bug not proof positive that it is not being done today?
>
On the contrary. Heartbleed is "proof" that memory IS cleared before being
assigned to a *process*. The data available via the vulnerability is
limited to data fro
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>
> 7-April: OpenSSL's *public* advisory (after a full week of private
>> notifications, of which yahoo surely was one tech company in on the
>> early notifications)
>>
>
> Given that many of their main serv
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> 7-April: Monday, Yahoo's dmarc change kicks everyone in the groin, the
> last full week before the US tax filing deadline.
>
The change was made on the previous Friday, so that date is largely
irrelevant.
7-April: OpenSSL's *public* adviso
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> >> They could have made the change not late on a Friday afternoon (or well
> >> into the weekend for most of the world).
> >>
> >>
> > On the weekend before tax filings are due in the US! And a couple of
> days
> > before Passover.
>
> and
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
I applaud Akamai for trying, for being courageous enough to post code, and
> for bucking the trend so many other companies are following by being more
> secretive every year.
>
Just to be clear, so do I! As I said, the end result was n
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi
> wrote:
> > They could have communicated, as in "listen folks, we are going to make a
> > critical change that will affect mailing lists (etc...) in four weeks
> time".
>
> communicated
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> DMARC hasn't cut down on yahoo spam so far. Yahoo's spam problem was
> (is?) centered on account hijacks.
>
I just checked my spam folder for the past month.
Out of about 80 messages "from" Yahoo, I can see about 3 that went via
Yahoo's
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> At least one vendor, Akamai is helping out now:
> http://marc.info/?l=openssl-users&m=139723710923076&w=2
> I hope other vendors will follow suit.
Although it appears they may now be regretting doing so...
http://www.techworld.com.au/articl
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/when-ipv6-will-be-fully-supportedwhich
then links to
http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/2639897-ipv6-addressessays
it all, really...
Scott
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> As someone
There was a lot of discussion about this figure back in August when the
relevant outage occurred.
>From memory, a large percentage of the traffic drop was from other sites
breaking as a result of Google not being available. ie, a site completely
unrelated to Google, potentially being served by a C
I've come across this error (or something very similar to it) before. I
can't remember the exact product, but it turned out to be a transparent
SMTP proxy somewhere in the path - possibly on a UTM firewall, but I could
be wrong about that part...
Not overly helpful I know, but might point you in
I've seen others reporting this elsewhere too, so it's clearly a problem at
Yahoo's end.
Someone on the mailops list reported that disabling TLS for
yahoodns.nethosts fixed the problem so it may be worth trying that.
Scott
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Adrian Minta wrote:
> I'm seeing the
Who wants to tell them that it's really 2013?
News
22 Dec *2012*
Version 1.0.0 (hydrogen) released.
Scott
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Many here might be interested,
>
> In response to Brocade not giving the community edition of Vyatta much
> attention recently, som
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> That's weird!
>
> Missing "akamai.net" entry from the authoritative DNS nodes? I am in
> Austria right now and so likely my nearby node giving bad replies.
>
akamai.net isn't missing from anywhere. www might be, but other hosts are
working
163.com (as well as 126.com which you don't have listed) is a bit of a
special case.
It's a Chinese site that offers free email address as well as a very
popular portal site - think of it as the Chinese equivalent to Yahoo or
Hotmail.
Whilst it's certainly true that a lot of spam originates from
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Nolan Rollo wrote:
> So in the four examples below, 3 of them preface the IP with an alpha
> character. Charter however, starts the rDNS off with a number. I'm not
> arguing with anyone but what potential problems could that cause with DNS?
> I'm also thinking of
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nolan Rollo wrote:
> RFC draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt states:
>
I think you mean an "Expired RFC Draft from 2006 written by the people from
SORBS states :"
Which finally brings me to my questions:
> It seems like the unspoken de facto that
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Gary Baribault wrote:
> The other difference is that Google tells you up front, LinkedIn
> installed this out of the bleue without any real permissions. Of course
> if this where an opt in thing, nobody would be opting in! Well, I never
> did install their app and
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> but who would want to deal with such slime?
>
I dunno, it looks pretty legit to me!!
Domain Name.. theccie.com
Creation Date 2013-09-28
Registration Date 2013-09-28
Expiry Date.. 2014-09-28
Organisation N
To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
via draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field
The idea of this header is that it will allow a sender to control that a
user will only receive an email if that email address was valid before a
specifi
It would appear there's something very unhealthy with your specific
nameservers regarding .au.
A direct email I sent you bounced (well, delayed warning) due to :
The error that the other server returned was:
451 4.1.8 Domain of sender address sc...@doc.net.au does not resolve
That address fairly
I've two 2 short outages to both Google Search and Google Mail/Apps over
the last 30 mins. Both cleared after a few minutes. For Search at least
it was returning a Google error page.
Comcast in the Bay Area.
Scott
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
>
> I’m hearing re
You'd almost think this was a technology mailing list given some of the
answers... (ohh.. wait!)
How about this - the size of the Internet is just short of 3 billion.
That's the number of people that have access to it. To me, that's a far
more telling number than anything around IP address or E
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
>
> > All that said: My back-of-the-envelope math says the Internet is order
> > of 1 exabyte/day, as defined by my own rules on what counts as "the
> > Internet"[*]. I could easily
To paraphrase Douglas Adams...
"The Internet is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly,
hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way
down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space!"
Scott
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean Donel
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Justin Vocke wrote:
> 512-377-6827 was one of the numbers trying to get more information about
> my
> network and how they could "help" me.
>
Which appears to be http://www.siptrunksproviders.com/
Which in turns appears to be the same company as http://giglinx.co
Don't know about you, but when I log into my Comcast account I see :
*Note:enforcement of the 250GB data consumption threshold is currently
suspended
*
Even then, the 250GB only ever applied for the "slower" accounts.
Scott
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
> In Mountain
Alex Buie wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is that purporting to be an IPv4 address
> beginning with 478?
>
>
> http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/how-to-install-an-open-root-website-69/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>
> > On
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> AfriNIC put these wonderful people on stage at the African Internet
> Summit.
>
At least they are good enough to include the facts in their FAQ :
* 5 - Do business firms use open roots?*
*Nowadays, no, or they are not identified. *
Scott
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Warren Bailey <
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
> We talked about this the other day. I think the consensus was.. In San
> Fran, you're best off to head over to Fry's.
The nearest Frys to SF is about 30 miles away in Palo Alto.
Scott
No issues on Comcast cable in the bay area, either Comcast business or
Comcast home.
Scott
$ nslookup gmail.com 8.8.4.4
Server: 8.8.4.4
Address:8.8.4.4#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: gmail.com
Address: 74.125.239.149
Name: gmail.com
Address: 74.125.239.150
On Wed,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> no you don't... the dreamhost example used the google ARIN allocation
> 2607:: this example uses the 2404 APNIC allocation.
>
> note that this may still be 'wrong', but .. it's a different wrong. :)
>
But likely caused by exactly
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> Additionally, it seems like both yelp.com and retailmenot.com block
> the whole 173.230.144.0/20 from their web-sites, returning some
> graphical "403 Forbidden" pages instead.
>
Although I have knowledge of either of those sites, I
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> And at least in the US, I'm yet to encounter a complementary WiFi at
any hotel that would be doing JavaScript insertion, so I'm not sure
> where you get your information that the free internet always means ads
> or a very high level
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> (Yes, yes, I'm well aware that many people will claim that *their* captchas
> work. They're wrong, of course: their captchas are just as worthless
> as everyone else's. They simply haven't been competently attacked yet.
> And relying on ei
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Or "ask me every time". Sites should not require cookies
> just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction to
> be made, but just to look? :-( Especially a site like RIPE!
>
Umm.. Before deciding what sites should or shouldn't be
Working now, tested from 3 hosts on different networks on both 80 and 443 :
$ telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 443
Trying 94.245.126.107...
Connected to wpa.one.microsoft.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
Scott
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Ben Carleton wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Really, this isn't hard to understand. Current SSL signers do no more
> than tie the identity of the cert to the identity of a domain name. Anyone
> who's been following the endless crisis at ICANN about bogus WHOIS knows
> that domain nam
But only over HTTP. Working fine over HTTPS for me.
Scott
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Goldbard wrote:
> Http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/regions.com
>
> Down.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:45 PM, "Positively Optimistic" <
> positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> I am getting NXDOMAIN for www.ipv6.facebook.com thus it likely is fully
> gone now:
>
Same from here.
www.facebook.com is nicely at 2a03:2880:2050:1f01:face:b00c:: (which is
> kinda scary as typically the lowest address is a subnet anycas
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
> used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
> be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying
> the other gender d
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
>
Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful
Ford's /8 w
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You don't lookup MX records for MX targets. This is basic MTA
> processing.
>
> If the MX lookup fails, as apposed to returns nodata, you don't
> lookup the A/ records and synthesis a MX record. You treat it
> as a soft error and queue
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Routers are sometimes used on networks that don't have internet
> connectivity [by design]. This seems amazingly short-sighted for a company
> that's been around selling routing gear as long as cisco.
>
If the router is not connected to the int
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:16 AM, David Coulson wrote:
> What if they said "it would cause the generation of port-unreachable ICMP
> packets to cease, and applications may hang until they timeout"? Not the
> answer you're looking for, but not wrong either.
>
Umm, yeah, it is wrong. The question w
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> The NTP daemon could still provide a configuration option to not
> implement leap-seconds locally, or ignore the leap-second
> announcement received. So the admin can make a tradeoff favoring
> Stability over Correctness, of _allowing_ th
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
> This was not a cascading failure. It was a simple power outage
>
> Cascading failures involve interdependencies among components.
>
Not always. Cascading failures can also occur when there is zero
dependency between components. The simp
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Someone must have something in a database that can easily derive the
> CVV2 number;
>
There is no way to "derive" the CVV2 number. It is little more than a
random number assigned to the card.
> otherwise there would be no way for it to be v
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> The main weakness of CVV2 these days is "form history" in browsers.
> (auto complete).
Any website requesting a CVV2 in a form field without the form
history/autocomplete being disabled is in breach of PCI compliance, and
risks losing t
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> That said, the purpose of CVV is to stop *one* type of fraud - it's to
> stop a skimmer from being able to do mail-order/internet-order with your
> card number. The CVV is not on the magnetic strip, so a skimmer installed
> at the ATM or gas p
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, wrote:
> My biggest problem still is the multiple computer issue. I am on at least
> 3-5 physical computers and 1-20 virtual machines, and 2 cellphones a day.
> I honestly do not want to store a database of passwords encrypted or not
> on an open service.
>
Sec
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Timothy McGinnis wrote:
> Dear Unnamed person at The SpaceMarket,
>
He appears to not be "unnamed". Gmail links the user to the Google+
profile https://plus.google.com/116655492141266828122 under the name Dan
Cooper, and with a "photo" of another Dan Cooper, bei
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
> days...
>
> to-local-domain, no auth needed.
> relay, auth needed.
>
> auth required == TLS required.
>
> Anything else on either port seems not best practice to me.
>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
> users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
> user.
>
MAAWG have considered this a best practice for residential/dynamic IPs since
2005 - http:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM, McCall, Gabriel <
gabriel.mcc...@thyssenkrupp.com> wrote:
> ActiveSync on Android allows corporate to force compliance with security
> policy and allow remote wipe. User cannot complete the exchange account
> setup without permitting the controls. If the user does
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> > the initial release date (not
> > actually shown in the that version as far as I can see, but it was around
> > the same
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
> Awesome link Todd - Why did I think that the resolving server would already
> know "where network path wise" the request came from. Let me post this as a
> comment and ask how the CDN endpoint routing is working.
>
I would guess, using
This service has been discussed several times in the ~2 years since it was
first released (including topics such as why it's bad for CDNs)
The archives would be a good place to start...
Scott.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:12 PM, steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
> I saw this in a post from Travis Wis
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers) really isn't likely to do all
> that much damage, even on the East Coast.
>
A 5.6 quake in Newcastle, Australia in 1989 caused, according to Wikipedia,
"13 fatalities, 160 people hospitalised, 300
And it's over as of tomorrow night.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/20/verizon.strike/
Scott.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> As of midnight, 45,000 IBEW and CWA members are striking Verizon, as their
> contract has expired.
>
>
> http://www.reuters.com/artic
In sort, wait... Once you're de-listed from SpamCop (which is owned by
IronPort and plays a non-trivial part in their SenderBase scoring) you
should find that your reputation increases fairly quickly - normally within
24 hours presuming that the spam has actually stopped.
Scott.
On Wed, Aug 1
Guessing some people here might be interested in this, but it seems to have
only been sent to APAC-based *NOGs...
Scott
-- Forwarded message --
From: Save Vocea
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:30 PM
Subject: [AusNOG] ICANN 41 - now underway
To: "aus...@ausnog.net"
Dear all,
T
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:22:59PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >
> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/159964/20110609/nasa-solar-flare-tsunami-earth-sun-radio-satellite-interference-aurora-displays-coronal-mass-ejectio.htm
>
> Someone shou
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> With IPv6, we are having some trouble coming up with a way to do this.
> Since there is no NAT, does anyone have any ideas as to how this could be
> accomplished?
>
Juniper, *BSD (including pfsense) and Linux all do NAT66 in some form or
o
That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
which are defintely returning records for me :
$ dig +short www.facebook.com @glb1.facebook.com
2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
Scott.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Joe Renwick wrote:
> Packet "1" is Syn from MySQL client to Server
> Packet "2" is Syn/Ack from Server
> Packet "3" is a TCP Push! ??? HERE IS WHERE I AM CONFUSED
>
The "Push" is a red herring here. Push is an historic flag that is (almost)
always ignored now d
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga <
nccari...@stluke.com.ph> wrote:
> ps. I'm just wondering why yahoo doesn't inform their users that the email
> that they sent was blocked because of their servers were listed in a
> blocklist (inspite that the server is able to return a corr
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, andrew.wallace <
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, wrote:
> > *yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
>
> Remember a wall of tsunami water travels in general at approx 970 kph (600
> mph), think about it.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> If the creation of .xxx is a preliminary step in making the fact of
> your web site only being accessible by a name ending in .xxx an
> affirmative defense against a charge of allowing minors to access your
> site then
>
But do you really
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Paul Graydon wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
>
> Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks,
> but principally a nice little 'hey check out this websi
It was unallocated a few days ago :
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2011-March/000807.html
Google will probably give you a fair idea why (the word "botnet" comes up a
lot!)
Scott
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:14 AM, mikea wrote:
> I rise to expose my ignorance.
>
> 208.0.0.0/8 is an
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Mark Keymer wrote:
> On this same subject. My techs have been complaining lately about our new
> VPS's we are making going to google.vm. Is there anything I can do on my end
> to get this corrected?
>
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an
39/8 was assigned to APNIC in January, and realistically should have been
removed from any bogon lists at that time.
At this stage it appears they are still doing "Resource Quality Assessment"
on it and haven't actually carried out any assignments, but that in itself
is enough of a reason to make
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
> it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
> normal LD charges. Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
> unlimited VoIP servi
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
> and would find it interesting if anyone has.
>
I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6 tunnel (now
replaced with a Cisco 877, but not due to any fai
The Windows Media stream was working for me (the others were giving the
database error), but it's all over now.
There's a press conference at 10:00am EST, but I'm not sure if it's going to
be webcast or not.
Scott.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Sameer Khosla wrote:
> Anyone else getting E
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
179/8 LACNIC 2011-02whois.lacnic.net ALLOCATED
185/8 RIPE NCC 2011-02whois.ripe.netALLOCATED
>From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-will-remain-carrier-neutral/
Scott.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey <
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
> With Verizon acquiring Terremark doe
>From http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011211-world-ipv6-day.html
Several of the Internet's most popular Web sites - including Facebook,
Google and Yahoo - have agreed to participate in the first global-scale
trial of IPv6, the long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main
communications pr
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
> I have two independent mailservers, and two other customers that run their
> own
> servers, all largely unrelated infrastructures and target domains, suddenly
> experiencing low levels of spam.
>
There's definitely been a drop-off in spam level
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to
start...
(And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is "awfully large", not /126)
Scott.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, iHate SORBS wrote:
> I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing
> dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes.
>
What sort of changes are you suggesting? Suggesting a block unless they
make undisclosed changes i
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Some do. Anyone with control of a phone system with digital lines (i.e.
> asterisk with PRI) can trivially set callerID to whatever they want. There
> are perfectly legitimate, and not so legitimate uses for this.
>
You don't even need the PRI.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> And, even if it *is* unreasonable, well, his network, his rules, right?
>
> "I block all SMTP traffic from IPV4 servers (clients?) which have odd
> numbers in the third octet." might not be a good idea for a high volume
> mail server wit
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:24 PM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> Jon Lewis wrote (on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:44:02PM -0400):
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Reese wrote:
> >
> > >A friend brought this to my attention:
> > >
> > >http://ipq.co/
>
> And now FF blocks it as a "reported attack page."
>
Bound to
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Doing away with open relays and open proxies didn't really interfere with
> legitimate traffic on a meaningful level.
>
> Blocking outbound SMTP is causing such problems.
>
You keep saying this, but can you provide any examples of situations w
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Roy wrote:
> Why carry a laptop? Here are some examples
>
>
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Belkin-Mini-Notebook-Surge-Portector-with-Built-In-USB-Charger/10248165?sourceid=1503142050&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=10248165
>
If you're looking at one of these, j
Made it to Slashdot too -
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/10/0056228/The-Status-of-Routing-Reform-mdash-How-Fragile-is-the-Internet
As usual I wouldn't recommend reading the comments unless you want your eyes
to bleed...
Scott.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> htt
Internap do not have an external Looking Glass (not sure about Route Server,
but I suspect it's the same).
If you're a customer their helpdesk will run traceroutes/etc from a specific
location if you ask, within reason of course...
Scott.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Max Clark wrote:
>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM, William Pitcock
> wrote:
> > For someone who is a CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Whatever, etc, etc, etc,
> > you really should know how to use dig(1).
>
> Certifications usually only suggest certain skills or knowl
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
