This report has been generated at Fri Dec 26 21:47:48 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message
system respond to mailing list email?
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some
rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer
has a useful precedence value that was used to
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 0 h 50,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program,
that is), before sending an Out of the office message. An obvious one is to
see wether your human owner is mentioned in the
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 11 h 18,
Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely regardless of the presence of precedence you would never autoreply to an
email that wasnt addressed to you personally?
And I add: in the To: field, not the CC: one.
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11,
Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the
list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Suresh
** Reply to message from Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:23:05 + (GMT)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3324883.stm
Ok so in summary you have to use a bit of CPU to solve a puzzle before it lets
you send email.
So either this doesnt work because
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message
system respond to mailing list email?
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some
rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer
has a useful
It's too easy to introduce a worm that gives a spammer access to many
teraflops of unwittingly collaborative computing resources. I can't
imagine a compute-intensive puzzle scheme is going to do much more than
the average iteration of a rule-based anti-spam filter. They'll just
provide a
You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. However, I
don't think you should necessarily consider the subscriber as the offender - I for one
have no choice in what email software is run at my corporate office. Everyone in my
corporate IT group is so busy
Pete Templin writes on 12/26/2003 7:18 PM:
You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. However, I don't think you should necessarily consider the subscriber as the offender - I for one have no choice in what email software is run at my corporate office. Everyone in
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Pete Templin writes on 12/26/2003 7:18 PM:
You're correct in saying that OOO messages from Exchange are offensive. How
It is perfectly possible for a user on an exchange system to move his
mailing list subscriptions and
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So either this doesnt work because spammers don't
actually use their own PCs to send email
Indeed; it doesn't do any good against spammers that control large
numbers of zombie machines; they'll just distribute the processing load
all over the place. And it would make
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So either this doesnt work because spammers don't
actually use their own PCs to send email
Indeed; it doesn't do any good against spammers that control large
numbers of zombie machines; they'll just distribute the processing load
all over the place. And it
It's an interesting concept... Now spammers will use a noticeable portion of
the CPU on the boxes they've hijacked, instead of the currently virtually
unnoticable portion of the resources, so, in that sense, it might help
identify
the owned boxes to their true owners.
However, I think Micr0$0ft
14 matches
Mail list logo
