Hi Valeriy,
Please, please shut this script down immediately until you put
it together properly!
Here is a transcript of me spamming myself with your script. Notice
that your script does NO error checking. I transmitted the mail
message from the Internet Partners public mailserver with m
On 4/30/2013 2:26 AM, Tom Spier wrote:
Am 30.04.2013 10:55, schrieb Thomas Schäfer:
Am 30.04.2013 09:28, schrieb Валерий Солдатов:
Hello,
I wrote a little script-autoresponder, it helps to check delivery of
email via IPv6.
Simply send an email to t...@mail.v6net.ru.
If we get it via IPv6, you
On 4/30/2013 12:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Hi,
If an enterprise today would decide that they're going to run IPv6 only
on their LAN,
They wouldn't.
This is a self-defeating question. In other words, if you seriously
contemplated doing this you would know whether you could do it or not
On 4/30/2013 2:41 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:32:59AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Here is a transcript of me spamming myself with your script. Notice
that your script does NO error checking. I transmitted the mail
message from the Internet Partners public
On 4/30/2013 3:33 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:20:58AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
We aren't talking some opt-in mailing list that could possibly
argue that they had a reason to allow a reply to a 3rd party.
There is no reason that a proper autoresponder setup fo
Without a detailed look at the client this kind of question falls in the
realm of my kid's story problems in her mathematics book - pretty
sounding things that are utterly divorced from reality.
I will just say this, however:
If you do NOT deploy IPv6 then yes it will save labor. Depending o
1-protocol setups that had really oddball problems that
took a great while to track down.
Just my $0.02
Ted
On 3/27/2015 6:37 AM, Jens Link wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
But as for operations costs, I would say, zero
I don't agree. In a dual-stacked environment there is more w
I guess I don't understand why this is an IPv6 issue.
You said:
"...we've discovered that there are sporadic failures even when there
are valid SPF records...""
If there are sporadic failures internally in Microsoft how can they
guarantee that those sporadic failures will go away if you chang
On 4/2/2015 3:07 AM, Bill Owens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt mailto:t...@ipinc.net>> wrote:
>
> I guess I don't understand why this is an IPv6 issue.
>
> You said:
>
> "...we've discovered that there are sporadic failure
All of this assumes "normal hardware refresh cycles" That may be the
case for ordinary office users but I got a million dollar asphalt kiln
attached to a Windows 98 controller with a serial port that says
otherwise.
Just wanting to point out that "normal hardware refresh cycles" more
often
re successfully sending and receiving packets on the wild wild
internet is not a good idea and IPv6 is not in the top 10 reasons for
this.
Jussi
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"normal hardware refresh
Very good!
Notice that only the threat of losing customers motivated them to do
something.
When you are a customer of a vendor and the vendor abuses you - only a
credible threat
of leaving to find a competitor will motivate the vendor to fix the problem.
"working with them" or "giving them
There is an RFC:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122
Section 1.2.2 Robustness Principle
Ted
On 4/22/2015 8:40 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Glad to hear that Microsoft did this on their O365 platform.
Is there an RFC or other standard that we can point other email
providers to about implementing em
yone other than their own crap.
Ted
On 4/23/2015 7:40 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
And yet the de facto behaviour in so many situations seems to be more
like "Be unreasonably paranoid in what you accept, and inexplicably
random in what you send."
:)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Ted
Hi All,
The following is a "state-of-the-union" overview of Comcast's IPv6
support on it's residential and business copper cable network. I would
appreciate any additions to this post!
PREFACE
Comcast provides Cable Internet service to subscribers running DOCSIS
2 and DOCSIS 3 Customer
Why Android doesn't support DHCPv6 is detailed here:
https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621#c53
They say to use SLAAC and RFC6106. I happen agree with their reasoning.
It is Microsoft who needs to change, not Google. The IPv6 standard
does not require DHCPv6 and it's a mod
On 4/24/2016 8:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I thought it was a pretty standard DNS client implementation to move
past unresponsive DNS servers.
The big problem are the
morons who setup nameservers, and those nameservers will happily
serve out IPv6 names for maybe 1 or 2 internal domains, then ar
Agreed 100% - to it's credit Comcast does that on the -working- CPE
devices as far as I can tell...
Ted
On 4/24/2016 5:49 PM, Brzozowski, John Jason wrote:
Operators MUST no advertise DNS server IPv6 addresses if they do not
work. The fix is simple. I would like to see as much happening ov
On 4/24/2016 1:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
On 25/04/2016 07:55, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Why Android doesn't support DHCPv6 is detailed here:
https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621#c53
Yes, we all know Lorenzo's opinion, and the follow-up comments ther
Because Android's IPv6 implementation is straight out of the
standards books. There are no hacks in there that mask problems
when a network manager makes any mistake with IPv6.
Strict standards interpretations always force people to clean
up their networks. Now you see how nefarious the IPv6 s
3rd party:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/rdnssd-win32/
Ted
On 4/25/2016 10:52 AM, Jens Link wrote:
Gert Doering writes:
(I'm not sure about Windows and 6106 right now, so not commenting on that)
I checked last week and the answer is No.
Jens
On 4/26/2016 1:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
3rd party:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/rdnssd-win32/
The question is: Why would any "normal" user care enough to install
that? Heck, I don't even bother running rdnssd on my (Debian) laptop.
I run BIND
On 4/27/2016 12:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
On 4/26/2016 1:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
But let's face it: name-server config is not something that interests a
large group of end users. Any feature which is not part of the default
OS installation is not worth consid
mbassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Shane Kerr mailto:sh...@time-travellers.org>> wrote:
Tim,
At 2016-05-05 12:45:44 +0100
Tim Chown mailto:t...
Sorry for the late reply but there is a bug with Android and IPv6 where
if the Android device is booted and for whatever reason SLAAC is not
running on the wifi network the Android device is using, then Android
will not then properly get IPv6 on other wifi networks that ARE enabled.
Typical s
I can make it break again and post a followup to this
email in a few minutes if I can.
Ted
On 5/9/2016 1:41 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt mailto:t...@ipinc.net>> wrote:
Sorry for the late reply but there is a bug with Android and IPv6
w
t would be a Good Thing.
I don't know though that I'd classify this as a bug, though,
since the correct solution would be for an out-of-the-box ISP router
connection to an ISP that does not supply IPv6, to either not have IPv6
enabled on the router, or to not advertise itself as an IP
Michael,
Just about all posters to those threads are end users not system admins
and just about everything they have posted is sheer speculation. None
have really tested in a lab. Most seem concentrated on app settings or
are convinced it's an app bug.
They are reporting the issue on 6.x , 5
That is correct, Tim
When you define an interface in Cisco IOS as IPv6 enabled but you don't
assign a prefix, all you get is LL assignments from it. I don't think
that IOS version 12 has any notion of ULA addresses in IPv6.
Keep in mind that I only tested IPv6 assignment, not reachability.
I wa
When we were still doing DSL I brought IPv6 online, but the only way our
customers could access it was to have the DSL modem/CPE in bridged mode,
and run their own router which was IPv6 compliant. Thus the "CPE"
security policy was whatever the router vendor defaulted. Our
observation was tha
. And they are really going to badmouth an ISP that supplies a
CPE that can't have it's internal firewall turned off.
Ted
On 9/19/2016 1:29 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
This kind of mirrors the "default" security policy on IPv4 CPEs (since
those CPE's h
upport?
-Erik
________
Fra:
ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor@lists.cluenet.de
på vegne av Ted Mittelstaedt
Sendt: 19. september 2016 23:23
Til: Bjørn Mork
Kopi: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Emne: Re: CPE Residential IPv6 Security Poll
I can tell
On 9/26/2016 10:30 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Ted Mittelstaedt
This kind of mirrors the "default" security policy on IPv4 CPEs (since
those CPE's have NAT automatically turned on which creates a "block
in, permit out" kind of approach.) so I'm not sure why y
e-mail service provider I can tell you that
this direction is really the best for both the customer and the
service provider.
Ted
-Erik
Fra:
ipv6-ops-bounces+erik.taraldsen=telenor....@lists.cluenet.de
på vegne av Ted Mittelstaedt Sendt: 20.
This is a flawed "argument of futility"
The reality is that people are fundamentally lazy -
if they were hard workers and industrious they wouldn't be
trying to make a living off the backs of other people's work.
They wouldn't be stealing and the ones not stealing wouldn't be
taking the lazy way
On 9/27/2016 1:40 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Well there is an answer to that. Instead of paying your development
team to do a from-scratch build, you can just have them port over
dd-wrt or openwrt. Both of these router firmwares are most likely
That is a Microsoft problem and they are working on it. The problem
of course is that the end user has the most to gain by locking THEM
(Microsoft) out and Microsoft isn't about to let that happen.
Ted
On 12/12/2017 6:45 AM, Jan Pedro Tumusok wrote:
Hi,
What about alle the people that are not
You can have this until one of your devices is no longer "supported" by
it's manufacturer. Which I guarantee is going to happen long before the
device actually dies of a hardware failure. And this of course assumes
that you are one of the .02% of users out there who regularly applies
firmware
It loads fine in Excel 2016 although some of the columns are a bit narrow.
It is always interesting to see a different direction to come at a problem.
It really helped me understand IPv6 subnetting when I built the HaCi
https://sourceforge.net/projects/haci/ IP tracking server and put my
IPv6 su
39 matches
Mail list logo
