Hello, I'm looking for a way to do path prepending
for my prefix as it leaves AS174 (Cogent), one of my
upstreams. The following:
http://www.radb.net/cgi-bin/radb/whois.cgi?obj=AS174
suggests that at least as recently as last May they
might have accepted:
3. Communities controlling Cogents
Could this be relate to the fact that Microsoft nixed the Passport service
back in January?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/30/ms_ends_pass/
Andrew
:)
On 3/21/05 10:10 PM, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to investigate strange timeout problems with microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Hubbard) wrote:
But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't
seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is
out of date or maybe has something else to try?
Are you sure you're sending communities?
Elmar.
--
Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch
.. it means that the guy should know when to do it -
and when not to. And he should be reachable, and should know enough
to realize he's screwed up, and to fix it. Sadly, this is rather less
common than simply knowing how to throw filters in - that's the easy
part. Kind of like the
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:35:02 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Suresh Luckily, quite a few people who turn on dumb spam filters do
Suresh turn them off when contacted and told about their bad
Suresh filtering. Some make the mistake of not doing so - and
Suresh they'll be
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 PST, Wes Hardaker said:
I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator
lately who's policy is that loosing occasional email is ok if it
means we keep out a whole bunch of spam. If they're that far over
the fence I'd need a strong bull with
C|Net:
Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
and search engines.
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
- ferg
--
Fergie,
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 -0800, Wes Hardaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator
lately who's policy is that loosing occasional email is ok if it
means we keep out a whole bunch of spam. If they're that far over
That is a far cry
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:47:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a lot of people in this industry who claim to
be engineers but they're not. In fact, I am of the opinion
that there is no such thing as an Internet network engineer
because there are no published best practices for
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines.
:
:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines.
:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:47:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There are a lot of people in this industry who claim to
be engineers but they're not. In fact, I am of the opinion
that there is no such thing as an Internet network engineer
because there are no published best
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines.
:
:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:18:57AM -1000, Scott Weeks said something to the
effect of:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected,
and treated, as often as it should be.
I always assumed it was working fine and we were
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:55:21AM -0800, John Kinsella said something to the
effect of:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
on the adult content registry.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
Roy Engehausen
Fergie (Paul
- Original Message -
From: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider
may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult
content registry.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the part of the service
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
on the adult content registry.
Its entirely
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially
they (the ISP) has to do it, huh?
Remember, this _is_ Utah we're atlking about here...
- ferg
-- Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy said something to the effect of:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
on the adult content
Bill Woodcock wrote:
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider
may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult
content registry.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
wrote:
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At
one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
Taking the assumption that we have all decided that Utah has asked us
to
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:19:40 -0500
From: Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider
But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't
seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is
out of date or maybe has something else to try?
In addition to Elmar's comment, are you clearing the BGP session
(either soft outbound or hard, soft recommended) so that your
announced
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the
effect of:
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Brunner-Williams in
Portland Maine writes:
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
The news.com article links to the bill:
thanks steve. i'm distracted. just got bit by red lake.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Baker Fred wrote:
I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on
web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a
certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of
the search engines is a good thing. That
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=
: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said:
: : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: : and search
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Oberman writes:
The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only
that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be
blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No
more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon
* Steven M. Bellovin:
The news.com article links to the bill:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm
Given that the bill tries to outlaw the distribution of pornography
(which means that it won't withstand judicial review), I think it's
astonishingly ISP-friendly. For
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't
accept mail. I still consider it silly to absorb the sender's bandwidth
like this (and all transits' bandwidth until someone is smart enough to
put a filter up). -andreas
(Apparently I am more movd by the topic of saving porn than I ever
imagined... ;) )
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:39:39AM -0800, Kevin Oberman said something to the
effect of:
..snip snip..
The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only
that access to a list of sites
...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a
database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites
containing material harmful to minors...
...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year
2005-06 only,
to establish the
- Original Message -
From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database
service of the all the world's porn sites and
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 -0600, Kathryn Kessey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain
religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their
parishioners.
Call the filtering program SCOwl...
--
GDB has a
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 22 11:38:22 2005
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:33:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED],
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Utah governor
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Paul G said something to the effect
of:
- Original Message -
From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
They are going to create
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially
they (the ISP) has to do it, huh?
Providing filtering software at no additional cost is sufficient.
* Andreas Ott:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't
accept mail. [...]
The CNN article tries to describe IBM's proposed system, but fails
badly. IBM's description is available at:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available
database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it
with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right.
Well maybe they're just trying to justify
The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match
the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the
exploited machine patching in the process.
I managed to setup such a system a while ago with nimda traffic however I
could not a find a software tool
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 CST, Kathryn Kessey said:
Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain
religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their
parishioners.
You've got rational, religious, and an implied politics all in the same
* Colin Johnston:
The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match
the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the
exploited machine patching in the process.
Doesn't work reliably. A lot of bots close the attack vector they
used, to prevent
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a
database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites
containing material harmful to minors...
...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for
On 2005-03-22-03:30:32, David Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
3. Communities controlling Cogents AS path prepending
for customer routes on egress:
community effect
174:3000 do not announce
174:3001 prepend 174 1 time
174:3002 prepend 174 2 times
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why even bother responding. Just imagine frontbridge (using them an
example, I have no affiliation with them) responding to each and every
spam they block..something like 7 terrabytes of data per week or so. I
guess this is one way to justify for more
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done
right now. Case in point.
Can ISPs
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- snip ---
Regardless of the legal and
technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem
on 3/22/05 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
The question is is it required to be affordable?
Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service
fee of $9.95/packet.
According to the bill:
(3)(b)(i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider
may not charge a consumer
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Steve Gibbard said something to the
effect of:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:31:35AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Alan Sparks wrote:
Am I the only one who is getting mailbombed by dozens of these duplicate
messages?
Could have something to do with folks not trimming conversation
participants from the TO: fields.
Or,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2005-03-22-03:30:32, David Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Communities controlling Cogents AS path prepending
for customer routes on egress:
community effect
174:3000 do not announce
--- Rachael Treu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
speculative_musing
I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can
be applied to the
rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to
accommodate other
categories of information deemed to be
objectionable. (I haven't
yet read the complete
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/
If this write-up is accurate, then this is incredibly stupid
in multiple ways and on multiple levels. I *hope* that this
is just a misperception based on poor writing and that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available
database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it
with up to the minute data... with
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
The news.com article links to the bill:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by
a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:
How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway?
Any bill with anti-pornography as its title is going to be a freight train
in the Utah legislature. Nobody is going to get in front of it for fear of
being portrayed as pro-pornography.
I
We here at AOL have noticed that there are still some people filtering
172.0.0.0/8, which is causing AOL subscribers to get blocked from some
sites. As a matter of general IP route filtering hygene I thought it
worth mentioning (again) to see if we can get this tamped down (or, better
still,
pashdown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:
snip
This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the
Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater.
The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates,
but the
maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this
rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues.
yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks
lucy for the reference to
http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=113
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 04:38:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Me: ]
If there were a centralized site to which to contribute such things, a
site based on MediaWiki, for example (the engine which drives
Wikipedia), would the members of this list contribute to it?
For those who have
The Utah governor's name is Jon Huntsman.
Use the word huntsman as new slang for some sexual act which would
make a dead man blush until people demand that any site using the word
huntsman be blocked.
-Name Withheld By Request
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can
do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
randy
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this
rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues.
yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks
lucy for the reference to
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Owen
--On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:18 AM -0800 Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The measure, SB 260,
If you are running Proofpoint appliances or software in a relatively
high (25k to 30k messages per hour) traffic environment, I would
love to hear from you regarding your experiences.
I will summarize to the list if there is aany interest; until then,
please reply to me directly.
thanks much,
Talked with Cogent IP Engineering today, was doing my own
prepending in the meantime. I received a number of replies
on and off list with quite a bit of conflicting info from
Cogent doesn't support any communities other than do not
announce to they support this or that to references of RIPE
and
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're
joshua sahala wrote:
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting all of my Utah customers.
Hey Guys,
I was wondering if any of you are seeing anything weird going on with any Cisco
gear you may have?
It started earlier today. I have some AS5850's in remote pop's around the US
and all of a sudden they all started to drop packets at the same time.
Some of them actually rebooted
At 08:41 PM 3/22/2005, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're making sure
Bill,
I'll be happy to contact the IT and/or policy people at any or all of the
Tribal Governments who's jurisdictions are surrounded by, or proximal to,
those of the state of Utah.
(a) They could use the business, just like anyone else, and (b) they are
not subject to Utah's state law (and
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:13:07 -0800, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can
do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
Those ranges are AOL's dialup pool. Easy way to get something
pingable in that space would be to
80 matches
Mail list logo
