Adam Roach;
> Because this is probably a community of interest for the
> topic of DNS, I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning
> that Verisign has apparently unilaterally put in place
> wildcard DNS records for *.com and *.net. All unregistered
> domains in .com and .net now resolve to 64.94.1
Because noone can stop them doing it, apparently...
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:43:35AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> so now verisign is deliberately misrepresenting DNS results.
>
> why are these people allowed to live?
Mea culpa, sorry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:27:09 EDT, Yakov Shafranovich said:
The SMTP server is fake, take a look at this transaction:
Actually, that was my point.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:27:09 EDT, Yakov Shafranovich said:
> The SMTP server is fake, take a look at this transaction:
Actually, that was my point.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
The SMTP server is fake, take a look at this transaction:
snip---
open 64.94.110.11 25
220 snubby1-wceast Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 ready
blahblahbla
250 OK
blahblahbla
250 OK
blahblabhjla
550 User domain does not exist.
blahblbjhbj
250 OK
blajbjbjb
221 snubby1-wceast Snubby Mail Reject
so now verisign is deliberately misrepresenting DNS results.
why are these people allowed to live?
OK guys... this certainly qualifies as "most broken SMTP implementation ever".
Will the protocol police please send out a squad car to pick up the suspects?
(at least now we know how they intend to only do this for HTTP. Blargh).
--- Begin Message ---
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
-- On Tuesday, S
This is outrageous, both in breaking DNS, and in abusing monopoly
power.
Other references:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00311.html
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-message-to-iab-06jan03.htm
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2003-01/msg00050.html
What can
Because this is probably a community of interest for the
topic of DNS, I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning
that Verisign has apparently unilaterally put in place
wildcard DNS records for *.com and *.net. All unregistered
domains in .com and .net now resolve to 64.94.110.11, which
runs a Ver
I am forwarding this message from the ASRG list. If you haven't heard it
yet, Verisign has activated their "typos" DNS service for .COM and .NET.
Original Message
Subject: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your Misspelling Are Belong To Us
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:10:52 +0200
From: Brad Kno
Why would you want to give feedback to the spammer?
Anyway, it seems to me that real spammers are getting more successful, not
less successful. They have won in court, and the radicals on spam-l have
given up on lawful methods.
And it also seems that real spammers have T3s, opt-in lists, working
Hi,
I co-chair the ASRG at the IRTF and we have been looking around for some
software to help us manage our group's website. Due to the large size of
our RG and many proposals being submitted to it, we have been looking at
a document repository primarily, with some additional tools that might
vinton g. cerf wrote:
We would also want to look very carefully at the potential spoofing
opportunity that rebinding would likely introduce.
Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
This is one of the reasons the authors of ADD-IP have NOT pushed to get
it done.. some more
work needs to be done on this a
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:28:46 +0200, jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thi sis true. But as far I understand there are only two options:
> 1. the address is to be to a mail server. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then access
> commands in the core of the text
> 2. or there are a limited set of formated entr
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:27:59 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> But I guess content filtering can be used to blacklist spammers by
> their IP address in close to real time. That would be useful.
But has to be done *very* carefully. The closer to real-time you try to do it,
the more likely that
___
Megaco mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco. Explicitly recognize that the
forwarding function that chooses
>an outgoing IP interface (i.e. for bypassed packets and for packets
>that have just been encrypted
Dave Crocker wrote:
Randall,
RRSh> Now of course if the application wants to be aware, it can "subscribe to
RRSh> events" that let it know that it happened.
That sounds remarkably like a "presence" service.
No, what it is is a socket call you make that "subscribes" do address
events on the so
Dave Crocker wrote:
Randall,
RRSh> Now of course if the application wants to be aware, it can "subscribe to
RRSh> events" that let it know that it happened.
That sounds remarkably like a "presence" service.
No, what it is is a socket call you make that "subscribes" do address
events on the so
vinton g. cerf wrote:
I am a strong proponent of trying to find a way to create a new set of end identifiers that would be insensitive to the changing of IP level addresses. It seems to me that we would find ourselves working pretty hard to tease apart the current strong binding of IP and TCP (pse
Randall,
RRSh> Now of course if the application wants to be aware, it can "subscribe to
RRSh> events" that let it know that it happened.
That sounds remarkably like a "presence" service.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Sunnyvale, CA USA
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
In the ongoing saga about topology reality vs. application perception of
stability, it occurs to me we are not working on the right problem. In
short we have established a sacred invariant in the application / transport
interface, and the demands on either
At 20:09 11/09/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 9. september 2003 13:41 +0200 jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have a major spam problem and a solution I wish to discuss here as it
fits the mission of no IETF group as I understand it (this for Harald).
Jefsey,
your suggested message format
On maandag, sep 15, 2003, at 03:50 Europe/Amsterdam, Dean Anderson
wrote:
I think that content analysis holds much promise. Only a few years
ago, we
thought that speaker-independent voice recognition was science fiction.
And in the '60s we thought we'd all be going to work in a rocket by now.
T
23 matches
Mail list logo
