Re: Terms and Conditions May Apply
Yo Brian! On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:16:10 +1300 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: I know we don't normally do movie plugs on this list, but anyone who's planning to attend the technical plenary in Vancouver could do worse than watch Terms and Conditions May Apply. +1. I just saw it at the Bend Film Festival. Good overview of the state of privacy in the USA, pre-Snowden. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: China blocking Wired?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Joel! On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, joel jaeggli wrote: it's not a secret it's not part of some wierd anti terrorist measure which is inconsistently enforced for the purposes of obfuscation, it's just an FAA rule. DOT != FAA. If it is an FAA rule can you show us where it says that on the FAA web site: http://www.faa.gov/ Almost nothing I hear attributed to the FAA is really FAA policy. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLUL/CBmnRqz71OvMRAgDGAKCc9w+FyrKLmfC0X6SUPci7PIsb3gCfUxvM YvPp99gGy7vEuFZD2kYhIj4= =V7Kv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Running Code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Masataka! On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Masataka Ohta wrote: So, existence of required running code does not mean much. Except a basic proof of real functionality and that is valuable. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJrejvBmnRqz71OvMRAi+VAKCVsUj7BHea+p5/9S/4HFuQLI/iBwCgvHaQ TWSzTobAnC1lNpsvEvqE1iY= =Kysh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: LORAN is making a comeback..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo All! On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Robinson Tryon wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, TSG tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: Folks because of the problems with GPS the LORAN system and a new location based encrypted LORAN is emerging. Problems locking on to enough satellites to get a fix? Atmospheric inter ference? GPS can be jammed and needs a good view of the sky. LORAN works on long wave frequencies that penetrate better, you can even get LORAN in a boomer. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJlKMOBmnRqz71OvMRAk4wAKCvNnX0OIx4FeHOOncZ65ycD4oB7ACg05E5 8be499hxFnrJSEjPpCIFfGY= =97Ug -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FSF whinging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Clint! On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Clint Chaplin wrote: I see that the FSF has beeen alerted. Prepare for the flood of very similar whinges from people who have not immersed themselves in the subject at hand. If you have been immersed, what is your educated take on this? RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJkLtABmnRqz71OvMRArJ0AJkBADMQrnqgpJw19bSTQ9qBWNrSKACfU4jh uB5+0azHW9j+o+Jmb7v6tk4= =rVTV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Joe! On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Joe Touch wrote: XML is modern? Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable editor? And does one exist that's free? OpenOffice, XXE, etc. Google is your friend. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDeRnm8KZibdeR3qURAvinAJwN3Tf2d6qRB/A8VLExE43vlCJogACg6J3w lejE6UfZ2/tz5w91dOy0x/o= =kn4h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Something else to complain about :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Brian! On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On the other hand, while the IETF site gets at least this right, the majority of the listed sites that I'm checked or used also manage to believe that + can't appear in an email local-part, etc. Nor as the prefix to a phone number, despite being the de facto standard. Not a de facto standard, a real standerd. ITU E.123 specifies the + prefix to denote the country code in a phone number. Lot's of folks mistake the international +1 country code for the USA with the common local usage of 1 for LD access from some USA phone lines. They are not the same thing. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCrR+u8KZibdeR3qURAnjKAJ4vlVZDi17sfwVHwsTdk5wcASMLlwCfc+Q1 sj5jOXDbX9OS4gC8JJRJHFM= =Nt8T -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: MBone
Yo Joe! On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Joe Touch wrote: Without a dobut you are right, though I think the degree of difference is awful small. Through hosts with root on switches or through wireless into the mix and you are back to being roughly equivalent. Hosts with root can't snoop anything but broadcast UDP on switches unless the switch is configurable; many switches aren't. root has no problem seeing adjacent UDP even on a switch. Just overflow the arp cache or poison it. Here is a link to how it is done: http://dhar.homelinux.com/dhar/downloads/Sniffers.pdf The dsniff package includes tools for this purpose: http://monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/ RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Re: MBone
Yo Joe! On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joe Touch wrote: root has no problem seeing adjacent UDP even on a switch. Just overflow the arp cache or poison it. That all presumes the switch doesn't detect this as an attack and shutdown that link, which is an entirely reasonable reaction. resonable yes, practical, no. The only way I know to prevent this is to hard code the MACs on the switch. This is time consuming to install and to maintain. Barring that, please name ONE switch, or cite ONE credible reference source, where arpspoofing is prevented at the switch by any means short of harcoding the MACs. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Re: MBone
Yo Joe! On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joe Touch wrote: PS - as I also raised on private email earlier, some ISPs definitely hardcode which MAC can attach to a port (i.e., they lock on the first one that gets there, and prevent subsequent ones until there's an override). Specific case: Santa Barbara, Cox ISP. I will bet $20 that COX does it on the Cable modem and not the switch. uncapping cable modems to get around the MAC limit is getting pretty common these days. See: http://www.cablemodemhack.com/ RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...
Yo Daniel! On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Daniel Senie wrote: RFC3168 is dated September 2001. That's pretty recent. RFC 793 is dated September 1981. If the routers/firewalls handled packets per RFC 793 there would be no problem. Just set them to zero and pass them along. The reserved bits were first used for ECN in RFC 2481 dated January 1999. If the firewalls handled packets per RFC 2481 there would be no problem. RFC 3168 refined the handling of ECN in September 2001. If the firewalls handled packets per RFC 3168 there would be no problem. It is only those router/firewalls that IGNORED all advice on what to do with those bits since 1981 that have a problem. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...
Yo Christian! Actually, RFC 3168 has nothing to do with it. The issue is RFC 793. RFC 793 is a Standard, not a Proposed Standard RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as Reserved. Computer programs are supposed to ignore Reserved bits unless they really know what they are doing. If a router treats bits in the header as required by the STANDARD RFC 793 then RFC 3168 will cause no harm.I do not have a copy of Baker handy, but I bet it agrees. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Christian Huitema wrote: So, if you are on a campaign to promote ECN, then maybe you should first try to promote this specification to the next standard level... You may also want to take a stab at revising the Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers; the last edition, RFC 1812 by Fred Baker, dates from June 1995.
Re: about certificate?
Yo Omar! You are worrying about the wrong things. Hackers do not bother to steal CC#s off the net one at a time. They break in to Amazon and take 30,000 at a time. At least in the US your liability for stolen CC info is US$50. So check your statements carefully and let the folks with the real risk worry about it. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i configured my browser to detect such pbs because i do shop on the net and i need to evaluate the credibility of any claimed site identity.
Re: [idn] Re: 7 bits forever!
Yo Robert! On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Elz wrote: Nonsense. Rarely occurs perhaps, but absolutely any 8 bit value can occur in a domain name in the DNS. *ANY*. Maybe it can, but that does not make it right. RFC 1035 DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION 2.3.1 [...] The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less. That has been updated by RFC 1123 to allow a number as the first char of a host name. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Re: e-mail
Yo Lionel! On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Lionel Gauliardon wrote: Is there a limit for length (characters) of an e-mail address ? See RFC 2821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, page 53/54. local-part The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64 characters. domain The maximum total length of a domain name or number is 255 characters. reply line The maximum total length of a reply line including the reply code and the CRLF is 512 characters. More information may be conveyed through multiple-line replies. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Re: What is at stake?
Yo All! Well Al Gore invented the internet in the early '80s, and the internet penetration was not 60% by the early '90s, SO I think these numbers are bogus. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Ed Gerck wrote: The Internet broke the 60 percent penetration barrier in the U.S. faster than any other medium. For example, some 35 percent of the U.S. population had phone use in 1920, but penetration didn't reach 60 percent until 1950. With the Internet, a comparable increase in usage only took two years.
Re: networksorcery.com spam
Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk. talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill.
Re: networksorcery.com spam (fwd)
Yo All! Hahahaha! Here is how Marshall handles HIS mail. He just throws it away! Maybe we can all learn from him? :-) RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:43:24 -0700 From: Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gary E. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam This is an automated reply from Marshall Rose's personal mailbot. Marshall receives several hundred messages each day, and if he tried to read each one individually, he wouldn't be able to do anything else! Thus he has delegated this herculean task to me. Unfortunately, I'm a mindless automaton, which means that I occasionally behave in a suboptimal fashion. One of my many responsibilities is to try to keep everything except PERSONAL messages out of Marshall's personal mailbox. You have sent a message to his personal mailbox, but my guess -- and I could be wrong -- is that your message is not really intended for Marshall's personal attention. Thus I have moved your message to a lower-priority archive where it probably will NOT be read by him any time soon. If your message is about one of the topics listed below, there is a better address to send it to. Please check this list and see if there is a more appropriate address, and if so, please resend your message accordingly: Topic Please Use This Address Instead -- --- Dover Beach Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Invisible Worlds[EMAIL PROTECTED] ISODE [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4BSD/ISODE SNMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..[EMAIL PROTECTED] POP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Safe-Tcl[EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP[EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP+Tcl [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP Testing [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Simple Times[EMAIL PROTECTED] TPC.INT [EMAIL PROTECTED] xml2rfc [EMAIL PROTECTED] If your message is not about any of the topics listed above, and needs Marshall's personal attention, please resend your message to Marshall's personal mailbox, with this Subject field: Subject: [DES GULF ALP BIRD PLY SAID] networksorcery.com spam and I will mark the message for his immediate attention. Please accept my apology if you received this message in error. Marshall hasn't figured out yet how to make me quite as smart as he is, so occasionally I bounce messages that I really shouldn't. -- Marshall's personal mailbot Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk. talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill.
RE: SOAP/XML Protocol and filtering, etc.
Yo Mike! On Tue, 8 May 2001, Mike Fisk wrote: For example, if you have a policy that blocks ActiveX and a firewall that filters that MIME type, I can always mis-label my ActiveX as a GIF or text and send it. But then only a colluding recipient would execute it as ActiveX. However, if the receiver doesn't use the MIME type, but handles the content based on something else like filename suffix, then filtering on MIME types is pointless. Not true. Many of the recent Windows exploits have depended on the fact that M$ often executes a downloaded file depending on file magic instead of the MIME type or file extention. They fool the firewall and virus scanner in to thinking a malicious file is one that in non-excutable, then M$ goes and excutes it. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
RE: SOAP/XML Protocol and filtering, etc.
Yo James! On Mon, 7 May 2001, James Binder wrote: Only if the application (e.g., protocol) is signed and cross-certified by a trusted CA could I see this occurring. Yeah, like a Microsoft certificate from Verisign. NOT! RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 Why would a firewall or a firewall admin trust the packet to indicate what it really is?
Re: bandwidth (and other support) required for multicast
Yo Alastair! Yes, the clients and streaming servers are free for Quicktime. Too bad there is no free or open source encoder, and no open source decoder. Those are still proprietary. The only way to encode live streams for Quicktime is on a Mac running Sorenson. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Alastair Matthews wrote: Any good shareware player for the Mac? Quicktime seems suitable. Mac and Windows Clients - both free. and a free, open source, streaming server. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/
Re: Media Access Control list
Yo Jason! You can try IANA: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ethernet-numbers Or better yet, Cavebear: http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/Ethernet/vendor.html RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Rakers, Jason wrote: Does anyone have a link for a listing of assigned vendor MAC addresses? Someone said the IEEE has a list, but I was unable to find it on their website.
Re: NAT patent
Yo Jon! Yes, but some years Texas Instruments made more on Patent Licensing than the rest of the business combined. We will just have to wait to see if the other shoe drops. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore typed: OTOH, if I owned that patent, I'd put it to good use... the normal corporate use of patents is to stop someone else charging you royalties for something covered by their patent - for example, cisco might need the NAT patent to stop someone charing them for fast ipv6 technology:-)
Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt
Yo Randy! On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote: all these oh so brilliant folk on the anti-cacheing crusade should be sentenced to live in a significantly less privileged country for a year, where dialup ppp costs per megabyte of international traffic and an engineer's salary is $100-200 per month. we are spoiled brats. Been there, done that, the LEGALLY required cache did NOT help. I bypassed it whenever possible. Cacheing is NOT the answer. Reports from the recent Adelaide meeting confirm this. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
