--On Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:16 + Thor Lancelot Simon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
for system
--On Tuesday, February 15, 2005 21:30 -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
This is utterly silly. Running another full-access copy of the MTA
on a different port than 25 achieves precisely nothing -- and this
support has always been
Um, you actually have to work somewhat to get sendmail to support
unauthenticated submission on port 587. The default configuration
is that port 25 is unauthenticated (albeit with some restrictions
on relaying (only for local clients)) and port 587 is authenticated.
As such, I'm not sure why you
I have a 3640 that while booting up gives the errors below at the console,
Console Errors:
_
C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory
Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled
unknown flash deþ
System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY
I have a 3640 that while booting up gives the errors below at the
console,
And I have a web page in front of me which says,
cisco-nsp -- list for people using cisco in a NSP (Network service
provider) environment
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
I know what I would do if
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say
click
At 04:42 AM 2/16/2005, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you accept unauthenticated mail on port 587, the problem isn't the
spam you will receive, it is the spam you will forward.
ONLY if that unauthenticated sender is also permitted to RELAY.
That is not a given. The decision to relay or
At 01:54 AM 2/16/2005, you wrote:
Odd regarding the Vonage connection. Their sitting on UU from where I
can see and I have excellent transit to them from Comcast.
I'm on Sprint, and the service was fine for a year and a half. In recent
months it deteriorated to the point where more often than
Or even sftp. This could enhance the security and still allow the tftp
style of getting the conigs. I know it's not widely used (if at all in
this scenario) but it could be a fix.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:45:16 +0100
Michael Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MH
MH ssh, or other schemes of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
|
|Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
|its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
|for system
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Rob Thomas wrote:
Hi, Dan.
] Why block TFTP at your borders? To keep people from loading new versions of
] IOS on your routers? ;)
Funny you should mention that. :) We have seen miscreants do exactly
that. They will upgrade or downgrade routers to support a
Thus spake C. Hagel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or even sftp. This could enhance the security and still allow the tftp
style of getting the conigs. I know it's not widely used (if at all in
this scenario) but it could be a fix.
I would think that HTTPS is both closer to the TFTP model (ask for a
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:46:09 PST, Owen DeLong said:
--==04787AC3A7FDFBF67AA5==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Um, you actually have to work somewhat to get sendmail to
Hi Folks -
Due to the feedback we've received on the Autosecure bogon list issue, we've
decided to do the following:
1) Provide a fix that removes bogon ACL creation and deployment from the
Autosecure feature. This change will be available in mainline and
maintenance software releases. For the
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Kunjal Trivedi wrote:
Due to the feedback we've received on the Autosecure bogon list issue, we've
decided to do the following:
1) Provide a fix that removes bogon ACL creation and deployment from the
Autosecure feature. This change will be available in mainline and
What caused that issue was file transfers and other bursty traffic
overwhelming queues, resulting in vonage traffic being stomped.
My router is a BSD/OS box and I see no evidence that it's losing
packets. Keep in mind that the trouble was on inbound traffic, and my
internal network, a 100Mb
In an update yesterday on advancedIPpipeline, Vonage
said that the incident ... involved multiple Vonage
customers whose service was being affected by a single
provider.
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/60400945
- ferg
-- John Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What caused that issue was
Yet another reason for supporting port 587 on your servers for remote
authenticated mail submission from your users. If you don't support
port 587, and use SPF, it may break when AOL or other providers re-direct
port 25.
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/56437
with many questions
At 11:07 AM -0500 on 2/15/05, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
http://advancedippipeline.com/60400413
The FCC is investigating -- it's not even clear if it's illegal to do
that.
--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
This has been an interesting thread; lots of divergence. I'll
Hi everyone - apologies for a rather long message, but I wanted to bring
you up-to-date on some steps the Program Committee and Merit have taken to
evolve NANOG since our community meeting in Las Vegas. *Many thanks* to
those of you who attended and gave us feedback - we learned a lot and look
Thank you Betty and the whole NANOG/Merit group for making great decisions
on moving forward. This will help NANOG evolve. I'd like to ask that
folks who know long time, clue heavy contributors who have left to return.
Merit has reached out, we need to as well.
Thanks,
scott
Having sudden difficulties with VoIP service here in Bangkok
(two providers) I called Vonage tech support who have recommended
a comprehensive channel test (using a utility they recommend)
from which the fault location should be analyzeable. I am
running the 6-hour test now. Anyone interested
22 matches
Mail list logo
