[swinog] high delay with icmp
The accessibility to www.google.com and a lot of other web sites, was yesterday the whole very slow! Icmp from Sunday 2008-10-19 18.00 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=121ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=117ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=118ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=119ms TTL=242 Traceroute: 11 ms1 ms1 ms . [192.168.10.1] 2 7 ms 6 ms 7 ms 10.14.0.1 3 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms tr-1430019570.zapp.ch [213.213.160.65] 4 7 ms 7 ms14 ms 108-160-213-213.static.zapp.ch [213.213.160.108] 5 9 ms10 ms 8 ms 62-2-42-33.static.cablecom.ch [62.2.42.33] 612 ms11 ms11 ms ch-zrh01a-ra1-ge-1-1-0.aorta.net [213.46.171.49] 712 ms12 ms12 ms tix.net.google.com [194.42.48.58] 8 110 ms 110 ms 120 ms 64.233.174.34 9 118 ms 120 ms 126 ms 72.14.238.128 10 116 ms 122 ms 118 ms 209.85.241.189 11 127 ms 130 ms 124 ms 209.85.253.26 12 120 ms 119 ms 120 ms www.google.com [209.85.135.147] Icmp from today 2008-10-20 08:30 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=23ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=22ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=21ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=20ms TTL=243 Any known problems?? Best regards! Adrian ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] WG: URIBL.COM ACL Change for 195.141.232.251
Hello, We receive yesterday this mail. It is verry interessing. This is our DNS Server and some Webservices and Monitoring Tools. We havn't any Mail Services on this Server. Did somebody know about this new Rules Greetings Xaver -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: URIBL DNS Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2008 22:48 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: URIBL.COM ACL Change for 195.141.232.251 Greetings, We are contacting you because you are identified as the technical or abuse contact for the IP address or domain listed below. We have made a policy change on the public mirrors that handle queries for multi.uribl.com. The following changes apply to the IP addresses listed below. IP Address: 195.141.232.251 PTR Record: ns2.pop.ch Current Policy: Allow New Policy: BLOCK - Positive Responses Effective : In 30 days If the new policy is to block queries from 195.141.232.251, and you are unaware that you are sending high volume queries to our public mirrors, or if you do not need the URIBL service, please make sure it is shut off on your high traffic filtering devices as not to flood the public dns system. If you recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 3.x, URIBL was included by default. It can easily be disabled by adding the following lines to your spamassassin/local.cf: score URIBL_BLACK 0 score URIBL_RED 0 score URIBL_GREY 0 If you are a high volume user and rely on URIBL to filter email, our commercial data feed service does allow you to obtain a copy of the data to query locally. Please see http://www.uribl.com/datafeed.shtml for more information on requesting the data feed service. If 195.141.232.251 is a primary resolver for many of your customers, there is a chance that a single client is accounting for a majority of the query volume we are seeing. If you can remove the heavy users on your end, and the volume drops to a manageable level, we will be willing to answer queries from 195.141.232.251. If you cannot make changes to the systems that are sending these queries, please forward this message to the appropriate person who can. URIBL may return positive replies for all queries if no action is taken after a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions about this notification, you may reply to this email. Thank you for your time, -- URIBL DNS Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://uribl.com ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] WG: URIBL.COM ACL Change for 195.141.232.251
Yes and Some companies are using our DNS for repication. Since then we have many DNS Requests. - Original Message - From: Silvan Gebhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [swinog] WG: URIBL.COM ACL Change for 195.141.232.251 Do you have clients using this DNS Server? I would see through the logs - someone with a mailserver is using this DNS Box for all DNS queries - Has nothing to do with having mail services on it! S. Xaver Aerni schrieb: Hello, We receive yesterday this mail. It is verry interessing. This is our DNS Server and some Webservices and Monitoring Tools. We havn't any Mail Services on this Server. Did somebody know about this new Rules Greetings Xaver -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: URIBL DNS Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2008 22:48 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: URIBL.COM ACL Change for 195.141.232.251 Greetings, We are contacting you because you are identified as the technical or abuse contact for the IP address or domain listed below. We have made a policy change on the public mirrors that handle queries for multi.uribl.com. The following changes apply to the IP addresses listed below. IP Address: 195.141.232.251 PTR Record: ns2.pop.ch Current Policy: Allow New Policy: BLOCK - Positive Responses Effective : In 30 days If the new policy is to block queries from 195.141.232.251, and you are unaware that you are sending high volume queries to our public mirrors, or if you do not need the URIBL service, please make sure it is shut off on your high traffic filtering devices as not to flood the public dns system. If you recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 3.x, URIBL was included by default. It can easily be disabled by adding the following lines to your spamassassin/local.cf: score URIBL_BLACK 0 score URIBL_RED 0 score URIBL_GREY 0 If you are a high volume user and rely on URIBL to filter email, our commercial data feed service does allow you to obtain a copy of the data to query locally. Please see http://www.uribl.com/datafeed.shtml for more information on requesting the data feed service. If 195.141.232.251 is a primary resolver for many of your customers, there is a chance that a single client is accounting for a majority of the query volume we are seeing. If you can remove the heavy users on your end, and the volume drops to a manageable level, we will be willing to answer queries from 195.141.232.251. If you cannot make changes to the systems that are sending these queries, please forward this message to the appropriate person who can. URIBL may return positive replies for all queries if no action is taken after a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions about this notification, you may reply to this email. Thank you for your time, -- URIBL DNS Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://uribl.com ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] high delay with icmp
nope, no clue... i've not seen any issues or got any alarms. maybe cablecom had (again?) bandwidth issues? -steven -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Kägi Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [swinog] high delay with icmp The accessibility to www.google.com and a lot of other web sites, was yesterday the whole very slow! Icmp from Sunday 2008-10-19 18.00 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=121ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=117ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=118ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=119ms TTL=242 Traceroute: 11 ms1 ms1 ms . [192.168.10.1] 2 7 ms 6 ms 7 ms 10.14.0.1 3 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms tr-1430019570.zapp.ch [213.213.160.65] 4 7 ms 7 ms14 ms 108-160-213-213.static.zapp.ch [213.213.160.108] 5 9 ms10 ms 8 ms 62-2-42-33.static.cablecom.ch [62.2.42.33] 612 ms11 ms11 ms ch-zrh01a-ra1-ge-1-1-0.aorta.net [213.46.171.49] 712 ms12 ms12 ms tix.net.google.com [194.42.48.58] 8 110 ms 110 ms 120 ms 64.233.174.34 9 118 ms 120 ms 126 ms 72.14.238.128 10 116 ms 122 ms 118 ms 209.85.241.189 11 127 ms 130 ms 124 ms 209.85.253.26 12 120 ms 119 ms 120 ms www.google.com [209.85.135.147] Icmp from today 2008-10-20 08:30 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=23ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=22ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=21ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=20ms TTL=243 Any known problems?? Best regards! Adrian ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Open position @IP+
Hi, http://www.swisscom.com/SCMCMS/Scripts/PopupJobEngine.aspx?frameurl=https://jobsp.swisscom.com/sap/bc/webdynpro/sap/hrrcf_a_unreg_jo b_search?sap-wd-configId=ZAPPLWI_UNREG Search for: CBU-50315754 André -- André Chapuis Swisscom IP-Plus Genfergasse 14 3050 Berne +41 31 342 40 74 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE #6023 -- ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] high delay with icmp
Hmmm, i think it was/is (!) a fault from cc... I started a trouble ticket. Thx for answer! Adrian -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2008 09:21 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [swinog] high delay with icmp nope, no clue... i've not seen any issues or got any alarms. maybe cablecom had (again?) bandwidth issues? -steven -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Kägi Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [swinog] high delay with icmp The accessibility to www.google.com and a lot of other web sites, was yesterday the whole very slow! Icmp from Sunday 2008-10-19 18.00 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=121ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=117ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=118ms TTL=242 Antwort von 209.85.135.103: Bytes=32 Zeit=119ms TTL=242 Traceroute: 11 ms1 ms1 ms . [192.168.10.1] 2 7 ms 6 ms 7 ms 10.14.0.1 3 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms tr-1430019570.zapp.ch [213.213.160.65] 4 7 ms 7 ms14 ms 108-160-213-213.static.zapp.ch [213.213.160.108] 5 9 ms10 ms 8 ms 62-2-42-33.static.cablecom.ch [62.2.42.33] 612 ms11 ms11 ms ch-zrh01a-ra1-ge-1-1-0.aorta.net [213.46.171.49] 712 ms12 ms12 ms tix.net.google.com [194.42.48.58] 8 110 ms 110 ms 120 ms 64.233.174.34 9 118 ms 120 ms 126 ms 72.14.238.128 10 116 ms 122 ms 118 ms 209.85.241.189 11 127 ms 130 ms 124 ms 209.85.253.26 12 120 ms 119 ms 120 ms www.google.com [209.85.135.147] Icmp from today 2008-10-20 08:30 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=23ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=22ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=21ms TTL=243 Antwort von 209.85.135.99: Bytes=32 Zeit=20ms TTL=243 Any known problems?? Best regards! Adrian ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] RBL's (again) (Was: Anyone from Green here?)
Hi Tonnerre, You got me wrong :-) What I'm trying to say is: As a mail service provider (recipient side) you can use greylisting and if there are some buggy mailers out there in the internet (or in your local network) it's not a greylisting problem and it's not your problem. they have to fix there mailer problems (sender side). it's not the ISP who has to adapt mail services to buggy customer stuff ^^ A mailer script which doesn't support queueing or in other words RFC-conform MTA operation will cause problems anyway regardless if greylisting is used or not, other 4xx codes, etc... maybe my opinion is very radical but I think it's the way it should be. Of course I know there are exceptions with individual customer situations, etc. bests Marco Tonnerre Lombard wrote: Salut, Marco, On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:21:59 +0200, Marco Fretz wrote: Of course I know what you mean. That's the thing every webhoster have to fight with. Last year I was on the Secure Linux Admin Conference in Berlin. There was a workshop how to protect shared hosting webservers... I am talking about the recipient side. I don't think it's a safe assumption that all scripts _your_ _mail_ _users_ will receive mail from are under your control. If I remember correctly the 2nd or 3th step was: prevent the users from using SMTP (or any other port) to the internet and only allow the destination you choose, your mailrelay servers, http proxy, etc. That is great, but not everyone does that. In fact the number of providers which do that is fairly low. I would do so myself, also for the reason that this prevents people owning a web service to spam around in a volatile manner, but that's not the point at all. crap customer scripts don't look like a reasonable argument against greylisting to me. though some webhosting customers might send mails with their mailer script to recipients which are not on your mail server and this other mail server maybe is also protected with greylisting, ergo same problem ergo problem not solved... For the receiving server, it is. do you see what I mean, now? :) or maybe I didn't fully understand the issue you had. No, you don't. but agreed it's always hard to decide if you want secure systems or happy users. That would be true if there was no way around greylisting, but there is. Tonnerre ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] RBL's (again) (Was: Anyone from Green here?)
Salut, Marco, On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:15:41 +0200, Marco Fretz wrote: What I'm trying to say is: As a mail service provider (recipient side) you can use greylisting and if there are some buggy mailers out there in the internet (or in your local network) it's not a greylisting problem and it's not your problem. they have to fix there mailer problems (sender side). it's not the ISP who has to adapt mail services to buggy customer stuff ^^ Or maybe you just didn't listen... Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
