On Apr 4, 2005 10:40 AM, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does anyone accept SMTP conenctions from known "dynamically assigned"
> addresses? DUL, QIL, etc should drop all those connections on the floor.
Consider, if you will, the UNKNOWN dynamic IP ranges
Neither DUL, nor SORBS DUH
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
> The Kelkea (what used to be MAPS) DUL, with more than 150 million entries in
> it stopped about 41% of the spam last month. The QIL, a new product, stopped
> about 55%, with the remainder being stopped by the RBL, OPS and RSS. A view
> of this from a differ
Offlist please.
-Drew
Just a quick reminder that proposals for talks, panels,
tutorials, and BOFs for the NANOG 34 meeting in Seattle
are due tommorow, Monday April 4.
Late submissons are allowed, but will not be reviewed
until after the on-time submissions, and will be
accepted only if:
- they are of exceptional qua
> +-+--+
> | 26.8013 | US |
> | 25.6489 | KR |
> | 11.2896 | CN |
> | 4.3139 | FR |
> | 2.8045 | BR |
amerika no ka oi!
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 01:58:07PM -0800, David Barak wrote:
> --- "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, and I think the distinction is pertinent to this
> > discussion, if the car has no seatbelts, you can drive it just fine
> > -- as long as it came that way. You can't *sell
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:54:40PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jay R. Ashworth") writes:
> > There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end
> > systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet
> > Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:59 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
>
>
[ SNIP ]
> But, leaving that aside, if the IP pho
[In the message entitled "botted hosts" on Apr 3, 19:13, Petri Helenius
writes:]
>
> I run some summaries about spam-sources by country, AS and containing
> BGP route.
> These are from a smallish set of servers whole March aggregated.
> Percentage indicates incidents out of total.
> Conclusio
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
I run some summaries about spam-sources by country, AS and containing
BGP route.
These are from a smallish set of servers whole March aggregated.
Percentage indicates incidents out of total.
Conclusion is that blocking 25 inbou
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
>
> I run some summaries about spam-sources by country, AS and containing
> BGP route.
> These are from a smallish set of servers whole March aggregated.
> Percentage indicates incidents out of total.
> Conclusion is that blocking 25 inbound from a
Not all bots
On Apr 3, 2005 9:43 PM, Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Conclusion is that blocking 25 inbound from a handful of prefixes would
> stop >10% of spam.
Using two or three carefully chosen DNSBLs would be a superset of your
conclusion
> ++--+
> | 2.0
I run some summaries about spam-sources by country, AS and containing
BGP route.
These are from a smallish set of servers whole March aggregated.
Percentage indicates incidents out of total.
Conclusion is that blocking 25 inbound from a handful of prefixes would
stop >10% of spam.
+-+-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Roesen) wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> > The other: ICMP has been rate-limited. It might not be the way to
> > test those locations. An mtr output would be more interesting :)
>
> mtr uses ICMP too.
Yes, but it also shows w
14 matches
Mail list logo
