Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:18AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are
My point was that competing, differently-named and
organisationally-separate suppliers of network services frequently use
common suppliers for metro fibre, long-haul transport, building
access,
etc. Just because you buy different services from different providers
doesn't mean there
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 20:12, Daniel Golding wrote:
The biggest problem I've seen with dial-up OOB is reliability. You really
need you really need to have a good series of testing scripts to ensure that
all the phone lines are working, modems have reset properly, serial ports
are ok, etc.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:11:42PM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
And if you will trust an ISP to deliver port 25 packets then why
wouldn't you trust them to deliver email messages?
There are *many* ISP which provide a reasonable job when
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound
already.
If there is no escape / exemption (as proposed by William Leibzon),
then, as a consumer, I scream OVER
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning,
non-generic rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or
source. (Most do, many do not. There is NO reason why
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
confiscated, just temporarily removed from the root dbs) immediately
and their owners contacted.
Because
Quick question for the group..
How long should I be patient to wait for some /24s to become fully routable
worldwide?
None of the addresses are mine, they came from the upstream (only one provider)
They are all part of the upstreams IP space, and I had assumed that they
would have kept them as
Basically a call to operators to adopt a consistent forward and
reverse DNS naming pattern for their mailservers, static IP netblocks,
dynamic IP netblocks etc.
...and to ISPs to facilitate the process by supporting their users who
want to run mail servers, and helping the rest of us use
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:26:47PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
confiscated, just temporarily removed from the root dbs) immediately
and their owners contacted.
Because there is no data protection on many databases
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:04 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
American bias but remember the Internet is worldwide. I do not know
how it is in the USA but there are many parts of the world where ISP
do not have a delegation of in-addr.arpa and therefore cannot pass it
to their customers. (It
Why content filtering is stupid:
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
X-Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AlterPoint Mail Security detected prohibited content in a message sent
from your address
Thanks for the private responses I received!
Turns out it was a AS append problem...
Michael
Quick question for the group..
How long should I be patient to wait for some /24s to become fully routable
worldwide?
None of the addresses are mine, they came from the upstream (only one provider)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:41:33 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The X.400 concepts of ADMD= and PRMD= really caught on, didn't they? ;)
Peering in a world of 64K ASNs, mostly basically static, is a lot different
than peering in a world of 40 million plus .COMs, many in motion. Most of
the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:21:20AM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
Requesting rDNS means I don't want to receive email from Africa.
Having an rDNS entry for a host doesn't mean you know if it is/isn't
in Africa,
Of course, I know that.
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning,
non-generic rDNS indicating that it is
Quick question for the group..
How long should I be patient to wait for some /24s to become fully routable
worldwide?
forever. - or until you clarify your terms.
all addresses, regardless of origin, are inherently fully routable
worldwide ... but to instansiate
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:51:34PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
...a very long and useful and informative message, for which I thank him.
Off to go decipher the madness that is RFC3982,
Steve
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
join us!
Of course, I know that. I just mentioned Africa because, in many
countries in Africa, it is simply impossible to get a PTR
record. That's a fact, there are many reasons behind.
Howdy Stephane,
It is also an area where many cctld operators maintain their registration
data using spreadsheets,
Hello,
We are moving from a Cisco 7206 to a 7513, and I was wondering if we
will be limited by bandwidth points on the 7513 (as we are with the
7206). From the sparse documentation I've found so far, it doesn't
appear that this limitation exists in the 7513, correct?
Off-list replies are
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Claydon, Tom wrote:
We are moving from a Cisco 7206 to a 7513, and I was wondering if we
will be limited by bandwidth points on the 7513 (as we are with the
7206). From the sparse documentation I've found so far, it doesn't
appear that this limitation exists in the 7513,
That's great if you want to trust one carrier to provide all your seperacy,
but, when you want to make sure carrier A isn't running your ring in common
with carrier B, you need GIS data.
Owen
--On Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:36 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point was that competing,
Requesting rDNS means I don't want to receive email from Africa.
Having an rDNS entry for a host doesn't mean you know if it is/isn't in
Africa, to any higher degree of certainty than when you just had the IP
address.
What he was pointing out her is that a majority of African ISPs do not even
have
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:35:23 PST, Owen DeLong said:
Requesting rDNS means I don't want to receive email from Africa.
Having an rDNS entry for a host doesn't mean you know if it is/isn't in
Africa, to any higher degree of certainty than when you just had the IP
address.
What he was
What is wrong with MTAMARK?
MTAMARK tags the reverse entries of IP addresses where SMTP servers
are. Fixes this problem very fast, efficient and with little effort
(script magic to regenerate the reverse DNS entries).
In priciple, nothing. In practice, the rDNS is a mess and I don't know
Does anyone have an MPLS network up and running in North America? Can
you share your experiences with the carriers. How did installations go
and how has support been? I am particularly interested in BT and ATT.
What is wrong with MTAMARK?
As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317
style delegations. They would need to be converted to use
DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating
servers to be upgraded to support DNAME.
There are
On January 13, 2005 at 17:41 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) wrote:
Of course, I know that. I just mentioned Africa because, in many
countries in Africa, it is simply impossible to get a PTR
record. That's a fact, there are many reasons behind.
That's because one of their leader's
On-List replies perhaps may be usefull.. Or could you post a summary of
your findings?
Regards,
Noel Montales
Claydon, Tom said:
Hello,
We are moving from a Cisco 7206 to a 7513, and I was wondering if we
will be limited by bandwidth points on the 7513 (as we are with the
7206). From the
That's bad sincd DNAME is deprecated and has been removed from BIND.
Owen
--On Friday, January 14, 2005 10:05 +1100 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with MTAMARK?
As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317
style delegations. They would need to be
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's bad sincd DNAME is deprecated and has been removed from BIND.
Owen
No, its A6 that is to be depreciated (and too bad because its superior
to ), but last I heard DNAME stays as standard RR.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:43:24 -0800 (PST), william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's bad sincd DNAME is deprecated and has been removed from BIND.
No, its A6 that is to be depreciated (and too bad because its superior
to ), but last I
32 matches
Mail list logo
