On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:09:40PM -0800, William B. Norton wrote:
On 12/4/06, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Focusing on expense is a short term way to manage a loss in the
front end, the bottom line. It would be useful to talk about
solutions that drive attendance, IMHO.
I
There really is no need for all NANOG meetings to have the same format.
In fact, if we accept the idea of varying formats, then some of the cost
issues
can be tamed. For instance, one full meeting, one regional meeting, and
one
special-focus meeting per year. The full meeting could be the one
Thanks very much for this link (and the summary). I see an interesting
(if not surprising) trend in Advertised AS Count. Up until 2001 it was
accelerating... and after 2001 its stayed linear. However, unadvertised
AS count which was basically stagnant has increased markedly before
then.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The idea of regional meetings is mainly to have a scaled down NANOG to
reach a much wider audience that does not have a large conference travel
budget. This is rather similar to RIPE's meetings in Qatar, Moscow,
Bahrain, Nairobi and
Ok, so the question of when is the best time to spam has come up. I cited
the ReturnPath 2004 study
(http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the
question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see
overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?).
Anyone
Dennis Dayman wrote:
Ok, so the question of when is the best time to spam has come up. I cited
the ReturnPath 2004 study
(http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the
question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see
overloaded MX servers and
On 5-Dec-2006, at 05:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since you can't register w/o specifying a shirt size,
this is not an unreasonable assumption.
[For context, this is a thread that is happening on the nanog-futures
mailing list. To subscribe, echo subscribe nanog-futures |
On 12/5/06, William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam.
That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for
me personally, only
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There really is no need for all NANOG meetings to have the same format.
For instance, one full meeting, one regional meeting, and one
special-focus meeting per year.
I'll truncate the rest of Michael's excellent post for the sake
On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:14 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get
delivered to
the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam.
That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show
that for
me personally,
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said:
The study says that nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam.
Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because
the source is
I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is
currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of
customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of
the world. They've been offered a point to point 100 mbit link between
their facility and
Hi,
few strong links in Europe and specially UK are: COGENT, LEVEL3, CW,TELEFONICA
COGENT win most of our US links to Europe even better than LEVEL3,
but i would not be surprise if LEVEL3 win most of the links to the UK.
for sprintlink, from Caribbean CW goes to sprintlink Miami and from
there
Lior,
No, this is very helpful. We just turned up AdventNet's Net Flow
Analyzer for this customer's two production cisco 7507s and we should be
able to see where the European customers are very shortly. It is good to
know that Cogent is a decent choice for this job - we've seen not so
You can check out LINX out of the UK. Its is a decent public exchange point
out of the UK and currently has the most participants out of all other
peering points in the UK.
You could also try www.peeringdb.com -- a great resource for peering data
from a global standpoint.
Hope that helps...
We started getting these, for reasons unknown, for
some pacbell.net email addresses,
550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the
complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
With great trepidation, I went ahead and
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:06:34PM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
We started getting these, for reasons unknown, for
some pacbell.net email addresses,
550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the
complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail
550 5.0.0 ylpvm35.prodigy.net Access Denied. To request removal, send the
complete error message, including your ip addresses, in an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting... we just started getting a bunch of these too. I wonder if
there's a glitch on their side.
I just did an MX
I'm going with clueless until proven otherwise.
Okay, maybe I'm the clueless one-- that's a typo. If I add the silent
invisible g into sbcglobal it works.
Sigh.
On the other hand, we do appear to have some nonresponsive machines in the
round-robin:
mail:~ postmstr$ telnet sbcmx1.prodigy.net
19 matches
Mail list logo
