Dear all
I have portmaster 2E with 30 asyn port.I try to
configure it as dialin server.But when i dial it can't
authenticate.
can anyone help regarding this
configuration
best of luck
kamal--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:47:00 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On 12-sep-2005, at 2:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amazingly enough, the *single* biggest problem in trying to get Joe
Sixpack to secure their systems is But I don't have anything
they'd be interested in...
On 13-Sep-2005, at 03:28, Crist Clark wrote:
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
[snip]
Moving everything to the end-hosts is simply not a good idea imho.
But isn't that what IP is supposed to be about? Smart endpoints, dumb
network (a.k.a. the stupid network)?
And with many peer-to-peer
Hi Folks,
This is both a request for assistance and a warning which I hope
will benefit others. We've been on AOL's whitelist for more than
5 years. We've been reorganizing our delivery servers in the past
month or so with no problems. A recent spike in complaints from
one of our clients'
This is the first I've heard of this...
Via The Inquirer:
[snip]
REPORTERS at the Wall Street Journal said they have seen documents which show
that a swift response by the US federal government to Hurricane Katrina was
hampered because FEMA computer servers crashed.
Michael Brown, FEMA's
on Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:13:19PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) quoth:
Attempts by agencies to spur the Federal Emergency Management Agency
into urgent action were met with bouncing emails, the Journal said.
It quoted a Department of Health official as saying every email it had
sent to
At 09:31 AM 13/09/2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
Does anyone know what their mail infrastructure looks like? From what I
can see, they don't even have an MX record for fema.gov...
No MX record, and the A record for fema.gov does not accept smtp traffic.
# telnet fema.gov smtp
Trying
An entity claiming to be Md. kamal Hossain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Dear all I have portmaster 2E with 30 asyn port.I try to
: configure it as dialin server.But when i dial it can't
: authenticate. can anyone help regarding this configuration
Kamal,
I'd recommend signing up for some of the
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
It quoted a Department of Health official as saying every email it had
sent to FEMA staff bounced. They need a better internet provider during
disasters, the Journal quoted her or him as saying.
A number of US agencies made desperate calls
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content providers are going to do anything serious in
On 13/09/05, Scott A Crosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the number of open print servers exceeds a threshold, I predict
that 'innovative marketers' will start using zombied toasters to send
advertisements to all open print servers they can find.
And at that point, security matters very
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], william(at)elan
.net writes:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
It quoted a Department of Health official as saying every email it had
sent to FEMA staff bounced. They need a better internet provider during
disasters, the Journal quoted her or
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], william(at)elan
.net writes:
not say which computer systems FEMA uses.
$ dig mx fema.gov
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fima.org. 3600IN MX 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
fima.org. 3600IN MX
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:08:59AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], william(at)elan
.net writes:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fima.org. 3600IN MX 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
fima.org. 3600IN MX 10
On 13/09/05, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ dig mx fema.gov
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fima.org. 3600IN MX 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
fima.org. 3600IN MX 10
mailstore1.secureserver.net
That's interesting -- I'm not getting that
The newspaper did not say which computer systems FEMA uses.
$ dig mx fema.gov
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fima.org. 3600IN MX 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
fima.org. 3600IN MX 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net
That's interesting -- I'm not getting
on Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 09:31 AM 13/09/2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
Does anyone know what their mail infrastructure looks like? From what I
can see, they don't even have an MX record for fema.gov...
No MX record, and the A record for fema.gov does
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 09:23, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a
problem for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are supposed
to send email based on A record then).
Obviously not having MX record is not considered
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a
problem for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are
supposed to send email based on A record then).
Uh, which mainstream mail server out there is ignorant enough not to
send to A
At 10:29 AM 13/09/2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
on Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Looks Solaris'ish
# telnet ns2.fema.gov smtp
Trying 162.83.67.144...
Connected to ns2.fema.gov.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 ns2.fema.gov ESMTP Sendmail 8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7;
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a problem
for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are supposed to send
email based on A record then).
Uh, which mainstream mail server
On 9/13/05, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attempts by agencies to spur the Federal Emergency Management Agency into
urgent action were met with bouncing emails, the Journal said.
while the lot of you can debate proper DNS records and what OS their
mail server might be
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:39:21 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a
problem for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are
supposed to send email based on A record then).
Uh, which
On Sep 13, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Attempts by agencies to spur the Federal Emergency Management
Agency into urgent action were met with bouncing emails, the
Journal said.
http://www.fema.gov/staff/extended.jsp
Lists an IT Services Division that has ~250
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:39:21 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a
problem for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are
supposed to send email based on A record
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:45:31 +0300, Joe Abley said:
And with many peer-to-peer applications, isn't the traffic
engineering already effectively performed at the edge?
already performed ineffectively at the edge is probably a better
description of the true state of affairs. Remember that
http://www.fema.gov/staff/extended.jsp
Lists an IT Services Division that has ~250 possible points of
contact.
Surely one of them has some clue... :-/ I think this sort of
problem
shows the endemic disease currently in place at FEMA. It's not just
an IT gaffe or firewall
--- Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The shimming model is a way to solve this by the
endsystems knowing
about multihoming, instead of the network. I
personally think this is a
better idea and scales much better. Let's have the
network moving packets
as its primary goal,
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
ObOp: Email is NOT a reliable form of communication.
^^^ unrelated and I disagree...
DHS shouldn't start to think so either. NANOG
shouldn't worry about if someones email is working
as a byproduct, but sure
At 10:17 AM 9/10/2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 10-Sep-2005, at 09:18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time. The level-3 shim approach to
multi-homing that was the primary output of multi6 is being discussed
in shim6.
Extensive troubleshooting of somebody else's mail server seems a bit
off-topic for the NANOG list. That's the sort of thing that, once the
problem has been pointed out, will need to be fixed by people internal to
the organization that runs the mail server.
-Steve
NANOG list administration
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
requester is
:: going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets before
failing over
:: to another address to try. Or is the requester supposed to
send SYNs to all
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:23:33AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
...
Which indeed means they have no MX servers listed and that MAY be a
problem for some mail servers (though normally mail servers are supposed
to send email based on A record then).
Obviously not having MX record is
At 03:19 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote:
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That
goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.)
I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction(s)
that were being
At 03:50 PM 13/09/2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Oh, and also ... please consider that some firewalls try to discern
whether the connection on port 25 is from a mail server or from Telnet.
While I mourn the simplicity of manual debugging of such sites, it
remains that: the fact that you can't
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:15:29PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 03:50 PM 13/09/2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Oh, and also ... please consider that some firewalls try to discern
whether the connection on port 25 is from a mail server or from Telnet.
While I mourn the simplicity of manual
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would
like to protect the switch ports -- there seem to be lots of
On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
requester is
:: going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets before
failing over
:: to another address to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph S D Yao writes
:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:15:29PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 03:50 PM 13/09/2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Oh, and also ... please consider that some firewalls try to discern
whether the connection on port 25 is from a mail server or
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:50:12 EDT, Joseph S D Yao said:
Oh, and also ... please consider that some firewalls try to discern
whether the connection on port 25 is from a mail server or from Telnet.
OK, I'll bite. A long time ago, I saw code that would trap the fact that many
telnet binaries
Waitaminute - isn't the whole *purpose* of layer 3
that the network makes these routing decisions?
If there are N routers in an ISP, I would expect the
ISP to connect to X endsystems, where 10N X 1000N.
How does knowing about X endsystems scale better than
knowing about N
I've had good luck with Oneac products, such as RJELP100. That being
said, it's probably not a good idea to connect switches and/or pc's in
different buildings with copper. I'd use fiber between buildings if at
all possible . Differences in ground potential between buildings
(especially during
On 13-sep-2005, at 21:58, Daniel Senie wrote:
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That
goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.)
I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction
(s)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:28:41PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
...
Telnet options, and for that matter speed, happen after the 3-way
handshake. We're not getting that far.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Steve, I defer to your expertise, as always.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
(firmly in the shim6 does not adress *most* of the issues camp)
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, R.P. Aditya wrote:
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports.
Don't do that, then.
I would
Fiber would be my choice. Not only will it solve the lightening strike
problem; you will not have to worry about
ground potentials being different on each side of the cable run.
James
Routing and Security Administrator
At the Santa Fe Office: Cyber Mesa Telecom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
Apologies in advance if this posting is not operational enough.
I received a call from a friend who is part of a team who are putting
together some wireless networks in the affected areas. They are in
need of an internet connection, a link of any kind, in Bay St. Louis, MS.
GPS = N 30 22.375,
The rules today have not resulted in and overly huge number of
multihomers.
I suspect that is a matter of perspective. Even if 10% of all sites are
multihomed, and we continue in the IPv4 multihoming model, then we will
end up with slow exponential growth of the routing table which
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:28:41PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
...
Telnet options, and for that matter speed, happen after the 3-way
handshake. We're not getting that far.
--Steven M. Bellovin,
OBTW, this discussion of how SEF tells the difference between SMTP and
telnet is rather beside the point. Most of what I wrote was, read
RFC 2821. It's a little different from the RFC 821 that some of us have
always cited, but I believe the points I noted are the same. AND it's a
bit more OT,
Anyone have recommendations (tested/practical is best :-)?
The APC Protectnet PNET1 and PRM24 seem quite nice and not
too expensive --
if they workpros? cons?
It sounds like you're either out of NEC, or, you are grounding them
to waterpipe. I believe NEC calls for grounding via
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph S D Yao writes
:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:28:41PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
...
Telnet options, and for that matter speed, happen after the 3-way
handshake. We're not getting that
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:03PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph S D Yao writes
:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:28:41PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
...
Telnet options, and for that
For contact us, I'm now getting a 403 error:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /feedback/ on this server.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.fema.gov Port 80
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On 9/13/2005 5:23 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
SEF [is] unique in that it can detect what appear to be telnet
connections to Port 25 and drop the connection. This is probably because
telnet connections send one character at a time whereas real SMTP
clients send all the strings at once.
While
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
There is no requirement - even in this century - for MX records. It is
a Good Idea(tm). But not a requirement. Lack of MX records does NOT
mean that you lose the store-and-forward capability of SMTP. Lack of a
secondary server, while equally not
william(at)elan Could you elaborate on how firewall will
william(at)elan determine if the connection is from mail server
william(at)elan or from telnet on port 25?
Perhaps because most telnet clients will attempt telnet option
negotiation? If so one could avoid this by using a
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Roy Badami wrote:
william(at)elan Could you elaborate on how firewall will
william(at)elan determine if the connection is from mail server
william(at)elan or from telnet on port 25?
Perhaps because most telnet clients will attempt telnet option
negotiation? If
Does anyone have any recommendations concerning hardware rate limiting
solutions with extensive API's? I remember packeteer from back in the
day and have been looking at some of their newer solutions that have XML
API's. Comments? Alternatives?
I would appreciate any feedback that can be
Although I know you're speaking metaphorically, to top it off, see SUBJ: line.
http://www.fcw.com/article90779-09-13-05-Web
Upgrade to v6 by 2008 -- no new money.
- ferg
-- Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moore's Law has not, and does not apply to routers. Thus, costs are
going up
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
is Layer 4 if I remember right) and would refuse or reject (difference
type of
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting
multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have
caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would
like to protect the switch ports -- there seem to be lots of
Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
is Layer 4 if I remember right) and would refuse or reject
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:24:39 +1200 (NZST)
Mark Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting
multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have
caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt
R.P. Aditya wrote:
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would
like to protect the switch ports -- there seem
I'm pretty fond of the the Packeteer gear. The API is pretty decent,
I can get a pretty good range of stats off the box in flexible formats
(tab or comma delimited, or in an XML format). Config-wise, I believe
I can change just about anything on the box, including running commands
remotely, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:21:59 -, Reeves, Rob said:
We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power
for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the
outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down.
So -
$ dig mx fema.gov
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fima.org. 3600IN MX 0 smtp.secureserver.net.
fima.org. 3600IN MX 10
mailstore1.secureserver.net
That's interesting -- I'm not getting that response.
from tokyo
roam.psg.com:/usr/home/randy dig
It's also interesting to note that, at least by some estimates,
the brief power outage in L.A. yesterday took down more networks
than Hurrucane Katrina:
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170702966
Of course, So. California is pretty network-dense, but what does
that say about
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam McKenna writes:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been
established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session
is Layer 4 if I remember
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
It's also interesting to note that, at least by some estimates,
the brief power outage in L.A. yesterday took down more networks
than Hurrucane Katrina:
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170702966
Of course, So. California
Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years.
Make that 15
Socks, fwtk (before it went commercial) to name a few.
-M
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there is a difference as to network going down for 3 hours
and network going down for 3 months...
Semantics. :-)
BTW - care to speculate what will happen if cat5 hurricane hits LA? :)
Or maybe we should be thinking of 8+ earthquake
No
folx,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:28:09AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
It's also interesting to note that, at least by some estimates,
the brief power outage in L.A. yesterday took down more networks
than Hurrucane Katrina:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would
BTW - care to speculate what will happen if cat5 hurricane hits LA? :)
Or maybe we should be thinking of 8+ earthquake
--
William Leibzon
threat models for huricanes are different that earthquakes.
(or is that one of those disaster+geography equations?)
--bill
David Lesher wrote:
Surge protectors can not protect you from ground differential issues.
True enough - but 10/100 Ethernet is normally isolated by the
transformer on the Ethernet transceiver. AFAIK there is not a
connection between the signal lines and ground. Isolation is 1500V for
the
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, David Lesher wrote:
Put a fiber transceiver in building A. At least 10 foot away,
put in a 2nd transceiver and connect THAT to the CAT5 going to
building B. Connect A B wallwarts to different breakers, with
surge protectorsand stock spares.o
That's an amazingly
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Roy Badami wrote:
william(at)elan Could you elaborate on how firewall will
william(at)elan determine if the connection is from mail server
william(at)elan or from telnet on port 25?
Perhaps
on Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005 Christopher L. Morrow writes
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)
The most basic question is if there will be a problem if we solve the
82 matches
Mail list logo
