On Sun, 5 May 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
like with single homed customers. The only time when those sets of
prefixes is NOT the same is for a backup connection. But if a connection
Not always the case, customer behaviour can not be accurately modeled.
I was hoping someone
At 03:34 AM 5/05/2002 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I was hoping someone else might mention this, BUT what about the case of
customers providing transit for outbound but not inbound traffic for their
customers?
two methods:
[1] if your customer has their own AS, have them route the
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away is
hopelessly naieve. The spammers will go overseas. Besides, if you look
The spammers already use non-US machines in various ways to disguise their
(still predominately)
The only way to catch and stop spammers is with horsepower and proactive
mail policies. Sendmail is capable of being configured in a rigid manner and
filters put in place, the problem is that most system hacks are not capable
enough to manage the overhead of enforcing a filtration rule on each
There will be a day when folks will need to pay to transit email
(Paul Vixie, 1998).
Still working on that better mouse trap?
well, other than that i wish i could charge _you_ for the spam i get
that's due to the several MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s on your www.dotcomeon.com
site, no. it's
In a message written on Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:36:40PM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
So far, other than Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s calculation where
he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
quantified per-message price bandied about..
It doesn't matter.
I
Be mindful that uRPF Strict Mode was created to help scale BCP 38 filtering.
If you have 1000 lease line customers and can use uRFP Strict Mode on 80% of
those customers, that is 80% fewer BCP38 ACLs that you need to manage.
For the other 20% you have uRFP + BGP tweaks or plain old ACLs. But
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:55:21AM -0700, Livio Ricciulli wrote:
In particular, I am interested in the ability of eliminating specific
routes from the FIB under uRPF Loose Check Mode to effectively filter
specific source addresses that are flooding.
As I understand the concept,
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:55:21AM -0700, Livio Ricciulli wrote:
In particular, I am interested in the ability of eliminating specific
routes from the FIB under uRPF Loose Check Mode to effectively filter
specific source addresses that are flooding.
As I
On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, Nathan J. Mehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
clients thousands of dollars.
I suspect I'd have a good chance of winning, too.
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, Nathan J. Mehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
clients
Well how am I supposed to arrange a payment on a Sunday afternoon?
As well I'd say I've already paid them more than enough to use
their IPs - I never brought up a BGP session with them and never
passed a single packet to them. I'm surprised to hear that such
extortion techniques are
Well how am I supposed to arrange a payment on a Sunday afternoon?
As well I'd say I've already paid them more than enough to use
their IPs - I never brought up a BGP session with them and never
passed a single packet to them. I'm surprised to hear that such
extortion techniques
13 matches
Mail list logo
