william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That means if
spammer registers new domain he'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That
Captain's Log, stardate Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:10:14 -0500, from the fingers of
Daniel Senie came the words:
snip
We have clients complaining about the junk email, junk faxes and
junk postal mail that results from these listings.
snip
I agree,
Even the .ie domain registry doesn't add personal
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day.
Elmar K. Bins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
[...]
This tempts me to hack something into Exim that does a whois on
previously-unseen sender domains, and give a deferral if the whois
denies existence of the domain. Is this likely to have any
meaningful
Peter Corlett wrote:
There's some awful tinpot domain registrars out there where you have
to wonder if their whois server is on the end of a dialup link, but
fortunately I'm not attempting to access those. Connectivity from here
to the CRSNIC server is good and no worse than to any other server I
--Rob Crowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
trying to pin down why so much email isn't making it recently.
We see issues with various big ISPs.
The most obvious is none of the three UK ISPs I have ready access to can
connect to port 25 on relay.verizon.net. (MX for all the verizon.net email
addresses). We can ping it (I'm sure it
Speaking for the program committee, I hope to see submissions from this crowd,
as well as faces from this crowd at MIT in July. 'nuf said; read on:
SRUTI 2005 Workshop
Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet
Sponsored by USENIX
In an earlier episode I pointed out to the list-resident VGRS person that
the dynamic properties introduced for one marketing purpose would have a
consequence in another problem domain, but no point revisiting that issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
There's some awful tinpot
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, kent crispin wrote:
I disagree, I think this may be ok, but its specifically because its
for .com/.net whois (not ok for general TLD). Reasons are:
1. Internic.net / CRSNIC whois has no limit set on number of queries
client from particular ip can make before
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:43:21PM +, Simon Waters wrote:
The most obvious is none of the three UK ISPs I have ready access to can
connect to port 25 on relay.verizon.net. (MX for all the verizon.net email
addresses). We can ping it (I'm sure it isn't singular?), but we have no more
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 11 Dec, 2004
While I can't speak to what Verizon is using, Both Exim and Postfix have the
very same feature called address verification. Its in use at a number of
ISPs. My systems reject 1000's of messages every day because of
verification failures.
Roy Engehausen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Verizon has put in place an exceedingly stupid anti-spam system which
does not work, which facilitates DoS attacks, and which provides active
assistance to spammers.
The technique discussed is called callback verification and I do not
agree that
- Original Message -
From: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: verizon.net and other email grief
While I can't speak to what Verizon is using, Both Exim and Postfix have
the
very same
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 12:30 -0800 Paul Trebilco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
That would be 1000's of other people's servers getting traffic from you
because someone forged their address in the spam. You are effectively
doubleing the total load spam places on
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 15:38 -0500 Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Trebilco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: verizon.net and other email grief
How so? Are you maybe confusing reject with
- Original Message -
From: Paul Trebilco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: verizon.net and other email grief
How so? Are you maybe confusing reject with bounce? If address
verification takes place while the SMTP connection is
Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] they also have what they call 'callout verification', which is
equivalent to what is being discussed, but the documentation makes
the drawbacks painfully clear and suggests that it only be used
against hosts within the same organization.
No, that caveat
on Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:36:12PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Verizon has put in place an exceedingly stupid anti-spam system which
does not work, which facilitates DoS attacks, and which provides active
assistance to spammers.
The
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:36:12 PST, william(at)elan.net said:
They are correct in this case. The address entered in RFC2821 MAIL FROM
is Bounces-To address and it must accept bounced email and as such it
must accept incoming emails. If the address does not accept traffic as
you indicated
Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
One thing that's not clear is whether or not Verizon caches any of
this information.
It appears that they do some amount of caching.
Dear Respected Participants of Nanog
Greetings! I introduce myself as Ananth Chiravuri, a
doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I am
working on how best to come to a consensus when
capturing knowledge, and am studying the effectiveness
of
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Roy wrote:
While I can't speak to what Verizon is using, Both Exim and Postfix have the
very same feature called address verification. Its in use at a number of
ISPs. My systems reject 1000's of messages every day because of
verification failures.
That would be 1000's
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
One thing that's not clear is whether or not Verizon caches any of
this information.
It appears that they do some amount of caching.
-Jeff
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
That would be 1000's of other people's servers getting traffic from you
because someone forged their address in the spam. You are effectively
doubleing the total load spam places on the net.
This doesn't scale.
How so? Are you maybe confusing reject with bounce?
Hi, long-time listener, first-time caller...
Can anyone recommend a good forum for BGP questions? I've got my copy of the
O'Reilly book handy, but having never really worked with BGP before, I find
it's not really the best novice-level work.
(Or, if questions about weird inter-AS routing
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
That would be 1000's of other people's servers getting traffic from you
because someone forged their address in the spam. You are effectively
doubleing the total load spam places on the net.
That is already what happens when spammer
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
One thing that's not clear is whether or not Verizon caches any of
this information.
It appears that they do some amount of caching.
-Jeff
It does not
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 06:03:11PM -0500, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
It does not appear that they are caching it, here is a sample from my log
file:
...
Well when I tested it (3 hours ago) I connected to them manually while
watching my incoming milter log. Indeed they visited immediate and
This report has been generated at Fri Dec 10 21:40:00 2004 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
32 matches
Mail list logo
