* More statistics on mailing list usage:
** Top posters
** Top threads
The IETF discuss list does this. It's a good idea, if it is posted to
the list on a weekly basis.
* Curious stats - number of unsubscriptions vs posts /day
Somebody thinks that volume chases people away and looks for
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* More statistics on mailing list usage:
** Top posters
** Top threads
The IETF discuss list does this. It's a good idea, if it is posted to
the list on a weekly basis.
We'll try to get this done once we have our own server in place.
*
I fully agree with #7, and if everyone acted reasonably and
polite, we wouldn't need rules at all. Unfortunately, we *do*
need some sort of method to deal with ones who won't listen.
What's wrong with private warnings to each offender?
a) As I said above, I've asked [politely] to kill the
As one of our resident experts on excessive posting (some
of it even on topic), how do you suggest we approach the
problem without acting dictatorial?
Act editorial instead.
--Michael Dillon
#1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor
lock-in.
Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished
through the use of PI addressing.
True, diy PI (mmm, PI) is a major reason people use it for v4 and why
they'll want something similar for v6. No
On 7-Jun-2007, at 02:48, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
#1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor
lock-in.
Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also
accomplished
through the use of PI addressing.
True, diy PI (mmm, PI) is a major reason people use it for v4
Hi all,
Sorry for the cross posting to a number of lists but this is an
important topic for many of you (especially if you get multiple copies).
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level content blocking for
specified content
[trimmed other lists, not sure if they'd appreciate nanog volumes]
On 7-jun-2007, at 11:06, James Blessing wrote:
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level content blocking for
specified content on the IWF list before the
On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[trimmed other lists, not sure if they'd appreciate nanog volumes]
On 7-jun-2007, at 11:06, James Blessing wrote:
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level content
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[trimmed other lists, not sure if they'd appreciate nanog volumes]
On 7-jun-2007, at 11:06, James Blessing wrote:
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level content blocking for
specified
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, James Blessing wrote:
Sorry for the cross posting to a number of lists but this is an
important topic for many of you (especially if you get multiple copies).
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level
There are no British colonies in North America...are there? Or are the
red coats coming again?
No, but there are a large number of American operators that
have networks in the UK and this +will+ affect them. There is
also the fear that once this is deployed in one country that
others might
On 7-Jun-2007, at 10:47, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, James Blessing wrote:
Sorry for the cross posting to a number of lists but this is an
important topic for many of you (especially if you get multiple
copies).
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that
Joe Abley wrote:
Anyway, how does BT's cleanfeed work? How are British 3G operators doing
equivalent blocking? I'd be interested in learning about the
implementation.
There is an excellent paper on the failures of clean feed here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
J
--
COO
Joe Abley wrote:
[..]
Anyway, how does BT's cleanfeed work? How are British 3G operators doing
equivalent blocking? I'd be interested in learning about the
implementation.
I wonder how this solves the, from what I found out, common situation
that people rent cheap root servers in a country
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The only thing that this 'content blocking' solves is that popsmoms who
don't have any clue about the Internet at all will be deprived from some
freedom, that the government can look into everything claiming that
everything on the Internet is p0rn
I strongly recommend you read Richard Clayton's paper on how (among
other things) one could hack the Cleanfeed system to *find* the really
bad stuff. He and his colleagues at the Cambridge Computer Lab also
have a fine blog - http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, James Blessing wrote:
1. Revocation of mere conduit status; by inspecting certain content and
preventing access to it the ISP is doing more that just passing packets
and is getting involved in the content.
Its not content blocking, its source/destination blocking.
While
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
I strongly recommend you read Richard Clayton's paper on how (among
other things) one could hack the Cleanfeed system to *find* the really
bad stuff. He and his colleagues at the Cambridge Computer Lab also
yup, read it, which was part of the
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/hubble
Despite its robust appearance, more than 10 percent of the internet
flickers out like a candle every day, according to researchers who
unveiled on Wednesday an experimental tool that probes the network's dark
places.
Ethan
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
I strongly recommend you read Richard Clayton's paper on how (among
other things) one could hack the Cleanfeed system to *find* the really
bad stuff. He and his colleagues at the Cambridge Computer Lab also
have a fine blog - http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org
I
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/hubble
Despite its robust appearance, more than 10 percent of the internet
flickers out like a candle every day, according to researchers who
unveiled on Wednesday an experimental tool that probes the network's
Does anyone have any leads on any job posting web sites, or leads or
resumes on managers of data centers in London, England. We are
currently staffing our offices there. Requires significant data
storage expertise. (see backup.com and swapdrive.com)
thanks
Joe Grajewski
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, James Blessing wrote:
1. Revocation of mere conduit status; by inspecting certain content and
preventing access to it the ISP is doing more that just passing packets
and is getting involved in the content.
Its not content
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not content blocking, its source/destination blocking.
oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or
atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything more than
port-level blocking it's likely it sees content as
There are no British colonies in North America...are there?
Or are the red coats coming again?
In fact, there are several British colonies now squatting in North
America in that great British squatter tradition. One of them occupies a
corner of the NANOG list which is why the meeting was
On 7-jun-2007, at 20:46, Sean Donelan wrote:
Its more than null routes, but not much more. The router does a re-
route on a list of network/IP address, and then for the protocols
the redirector
box understands (i.e. pretty much only HTTP) it matches part of the
application/URL pattern.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not content blocking, its source/destination blocking.
oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or
atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything more than
port-level
Anyway, how does BT's cleanfeed work? How are British 3G
operators doing equivalent blocking? I'd be interested in
learning about the implementation.
Well, first of all Cleanfeed's not perfect. And it's not that secret
either.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
--Michael Dillon
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not content blocking, its source/destination blocking.
oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or
atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything more than
port-level blocking it's likely
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not content blocking, its source/destination blocking.
oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or
atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Its more than null routes, but not much more. The router does a re-route
on a list of network/IP address, and then for the protocols the redirector
box understands (i.e. pretty much only HTTP) it matches part of the
application/URL pattern.
On 7-jun-2007, at 22:05, Sean Donelan wrote:
That's a cool way to implement monitoring of traffic towards
random parts of the internet.
There are much easier, cheaper ways to do that.
Easier and cheaper? Can't think of any... This method nicely gets
around the need to tap and process
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:40:20 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending
content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea.
Quoting the article http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=497
At present, the government does not
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending
content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea. I would
think that if the content in question is legal, ISPs and the government
shouldn't touch it, and if it isn't, law enforcement
Ok. I'll chime in.
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending
content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea. I
would think that if the content in question is legal, ISPs and the
government
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:40:20 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending
content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea.
Quoting the article http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=497
On 7-jun-2007, at 23:29, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending
content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea. I
would think that if the content in question is legal, ISPs and the
government shouldn't touch it, and
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:01:54PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
I strongly recommend you read Richard Clayton's paper on how (among
other things) one could hack the Cleanfeed system to *find* the really
bad stuff. He and his colleagues at the
39 matches
Mail list logo
