At 12:55 PM 10/30/2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
nice if there were a NAMOG (North
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to
At 01:59 PM 10/21/2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
So your recommendation is that universities, enterprises and ISPs
simply stop offering all Internet service because a few particular
application protocols are badly behaved?
They should stop to
At 09:50 AM 10/8/2007, Joe Greco wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote:
Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 -
$50 per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect
internet industry?
I would fix the problem, ie get more
At 05:29 PM 9/6/2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:12:34PM -0700, matthew zeier wrote:
Anyone else have any issues, past or present, with this kind of thing?
It takes ~ 7 minutes from the time Nagios sends an email sms to
ATT to the
time it hits my phone. I'm
At 03:23 PM 5/10/2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us,
things like PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream
of the aggregation router will not work as you would miss any
traffic
At 06:13 PM 4/15/2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We
were told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in
their blacker
At 05:28 PM 4/12/2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
Hopefully I'll be forgiven for geeking out over DHCP on nanog-l twice
in the same week.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:20:18AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
1. It's no longer necessary to limit the subnet MTU to that of the
least capable
At 06:09 PM 4/12/2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
2. It's no longer necessary to manage 1500 byte+ MTUs manually
But for this, there has been (for a long time now) a DHCPv4 option
to give a client its MTU for the interface being
At 09:41 PM 4/3/2007, you wrote:
No one wants to wait for security checks while browsing. This
information must be preprocess and at the ready, or the Internet
starts to feel rather slow and broken. By slowing down registry
updates and even providing a preview of upcoming changes will
At 12:15 PM 3/13/2007, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Someone please tell me there's a valid reason
why the
download range couldn't be variable and negotiated
There are several valid reasons, but with newer modulations more
bandwidth upstream is more and more of a reality. Now if we could
just turn
At 01:33 PM 3/13/2007, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
As with the deployment of telephone service a century ago, the
ubiquitious availability of broadband service will require
government involvement in the form of fees on some and subsidies
At 02:15 PM 3/13/2007, Todd Vierling wrote:
On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are other technologies better
suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable,
or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas
are upgraded.
At 07:25 AM 10/26/2006, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:03:54AM +, Fergie wrote:
Randy,
I don't think I implied anything of the sort.
I did, however, pipe up when a BCP is mentioned that I endorse,
and co-authored -- and likewise, cannot figure out for life of
me, why
At 05:26 PM 10/26/2006, Fergie wrote:
Chris,
W.R.T. #2 below:
Be for real: No one ever suggested that backbone service
providers attempt to ingress filter traffic -- this is an
edge function.
I guess I'd add some clarification, though it should be obvious without.
Backbone service
At 12:40 AM 10/24/2006, David Schwartz wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 18:57 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
I've been in and out of several colos that require you to leave your ID
(passport/DL, and business card) up at the front desk throughout your
visit. This could be for hours, or even for
At 10:29 PM 9/25/2006, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
...
Who thinks it would be a good idea to have a knob such that ICMP
error messages are always source from a certain IP address
At 04:33 AM 9/18/2006, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 03:18:07AM -0500, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I've been directed to put all of the internal hosts and such
into the public
DNS zone for a client. My typical policy
At 06:26 PM 7/24/2006, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
While hardwired
(fiber/coax/copper) aggregation points usually don't have backup power on
them, most cellular towers have either batteries or generators for backup
power, correct?
We see good cable modem connectivity during power outages. Batteries
basic,
known-functional POTS phone into the network interface says they're
wrong).
Regards,
Frank
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Daniel Senie
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:47 PM
To: Brandon Galbraith
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Hot weather and power
At 09:22 AM 5/23/2006, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 03:33:34 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: private ip addresses from ISP
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:30:37PM -0400, Andrew Kirch wrote:
3) You are seeing packets
At 10:39 AM 5/16/2006, Tao Wan wrote:
Here is a tech report with a survey on geolocation and evasion techniques:
http://www.scs.carleton.ca/~jamuir/papers/TR-06-05.pdf
This document seems to miss one other fairly common way in which
geolocation fails: VPN. Whether a single user VPN session
At 08:57 AM 3/8/2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 8, 2006, at 1:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At certain cities, your experience will be worse - Cogent doesn't have
peers with big boys in every city they are at - so you'll have more
chance
of being backhauled to sfo/iad than if you
At 12:52 PM 1/16/2006, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) writes:
For repeat offenders create a list of networks that won't
implement BCP 38 and collectively de-peer with them telling
them why you are
At 07:58 AM 12/26/2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Dave Pooser wrote:
This should be another thread completely, but I am wondering about
the liability of the individual's who have owned machines that are
attacking me/my clients.
As a practical matter, I'd expect it to be
At 05:54 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
- one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay,
and the other is to offer a premium service to those
who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service
on the same
At 10:27 PM 12/4/2005, Church, Chuck wrote:
What about all the viruses out there that don't forge addresses?
As others have noted, these are so far lost in the noise as to not be a factor.
Sending a warning message makes sense for these.
Why? Because you need to be the one to tell the
At 03:12 PM 12/2/2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On December 2, 2005 2:02:15 PM -0600 Dennis Dayman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interested, but I see many Sober postings and outages on other lists and
not here...has anyone been having issues? I know the ISP's are fighting
the living out of
My results match Randy's. I looked at these blocks from several
networks (ATT, Cogent, PSI, XO, Comcast). All have the routes
showing. ICMP Echo packets do not come back via any of them. Either
the machines aren't listening, the echos are being blocked, or
there's widespread blockage.
At 01:05 PM 10/19/2005, John Dupuy wrote:
For the customer with an Internet mission critical app, being tied
to a Tier 2 has it's own set of problems, which might actually be
worse than being tied to a Tier 1.
The key word is might. In fact, I would posit that a Tier 2 with
multiply
At 11:30 AM 10/18/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote:
I guess it's time to have a look at the actual scalability issues we
face in the Internet routing system. Maybe the area of action becomes
a bit more clear with such an assessment.
In the current Internet routing system we face two distinctive
At 04:51 PM 10/17/2005, Tony Li wrote:
Fred,
If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of
magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally
change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and
yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but
At 01:37 PM 10/7/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out.
If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can
not support
multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business
At 01:49 PM 10/5/2005, Matthew Crocker wrote:
So perhaps the question you should be asking is: Why didn't routes
for
these networks fall over to the other upstream peers which *are*
capable of
moving the packets? Surely MCI, ATT, Sprint, and others would
carry the
packets to the right place.
At 03:37 PM 10/5/2005, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Matthew Crocker wrote:
This comes down to a little more than just depeering -- at least in the
BGP sense. There's active route filtering going on as well if connectivity
is dead;
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.
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 07:55 PM 9/6/2005, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
william == william(at)elan net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
william The above line is as clear as it gets (if the other two
william mentions that data is to be made available to public is not
william enough), so there this argument that rwhois
At 12:41 PM 8/22/2005, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 8/22/05, Simon Hamilton-Wilkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They support P/S2 / USB / Sun and serial - though are a very expensive
way to do serial.
And (last time I looked, at least) they required an expensive,
proprietary, Windows-only
At 05:45 PM 8/23/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-aug-2005, at 23:24, Richard Z wrote:
US is trailing other industrial countries in broadband penetration
I'm not sure that's the case, AFAIK the US holds its own.
because no carrier is interested in investing and building
an
At 11:18 AM 8/17/2005, William Warren wrote:
I may be off base here. Can't an ips look at the traffic; say on
443 and figure out whether the traffic is malicious or not?
Well, your particular example is perhaps not the best one. 443 is
SSL, and looking within the encrypted traffic is not
At 12:46 AM 8/16/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not nearly confident enough to decide on behalf of almost
billion other people how they should benefit from the Internet
and how not to.
thanks for that!
Indeed. Also
At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away
with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global
address per router for management and the generation
At 10:51 AM 7/31/2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 31 Jul 2005, at 01:23, Robert Boyle wrote:
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good
idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in
theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as
much as
At 02:48 AM 7/19/2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Daniel Senie wrote:
use the customer's billing address, attempt to determine location
based on IP address or some other voodoo? It'll be interesting to see if they
If you look at the webpage of telecomsystems
(http
At 09:06 PM 7/18/2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/166400372
Interesting. No ability to opt-out, and no signup option. So will
they use the customer's billing address, attempt to determine
location based on IP address or some other voodoo? It'll be
At 03:51 PM 7/7/2005, David Andersen wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I'd have to counter with the assumption that NATs are going
away with v6 is a rather risky assumption. Or perhaps I
misunderstood your point...
There is one thing
At 10:16 AM 6/13/2005, Frotzler, Florian wrote:
ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/cons/isp/security/Ingress-Prefix-Filter-Template
s/
Florian
The original question didn't specify whether the interest was prefixes or
packet filters.
For packet filtering, the above URL is not going to help, but a
At 01:39 PM 4/27/2005, you wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie
(Paul
Ferguson) writes:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
Links here:
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720
At a recent forum at Fordham Law
At 02:00 PM 4/14/2005, Peter John Hill wrote:
I have completely given up on relying on Comcast for dns service... For
now I will continue to use them for transit
If they are unwilling to implement anycast dns then I cannot trust them...
It's unclear why anycast would be required. Most or all of
NOTE: Off-list, as I'm not sure this is on-topic enough to post.
At 03:19 PM 4/14/2005, Neil J. McRae wrote:
They've recently slashed their prices to even more absurdly
low new levels, and are actively targetting their peers'
customers, particularly in Europe. Anyone who didn't expect
to see
At 06:10 PM 4/6/2005, JP Velders wrote:
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:54:08 -0400
From: Adam Jacob Muller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Spam (un)blocking
[ ... ]
Second, is there some way to mark my block of addresses is owned by
responsible responsive system administrators.
Over here in RIPE land
At 10:06 AM 3/24/2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
At 01:38 PM 3/24/2005, Oren Levin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J.D. Falk
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:37 AM
On 03/23/05, Sam Hayes Merritt, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Vonage sold over not clearly
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
At 09:08 AM 3/13/2005, Josh Vince wrote:
Here's what APC has to say about it:
At 03:01 AM 3/2/2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 06:00 PM 01-03-05 -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
ftp://ftp.arin.net/info/asn.txt
Lists AS number, the whois AS name, and POC handle for each AS.
Jeff
If you are also interested in AS info outside the ARIN region,
the following file may be of
At 09:46 AM 3/2/2005, you wrote:
advancedIPpipeline is running another article this morning
in their series of articles covering the Vonage service
disruptions that [allegedly] invlove an ISP port blocking
SIP connectitity between Vonage's client equipment and
Vonage's servers. While there is a
At 01:24 PM 3/2/2005, you wrote:
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the ISP
a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few hours. But
now that cable modem providers themselves are providing
At 04:42 AM 2/16/2005, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you accept unauthenticated mail on port 587, the problem isn't the
spam you will receive, it is the spam you will forward.
ONLY if that unauthenticated sender is also permitted to RELAY.
That is not a given. The decision to relay or
At 01:54 AM 2/16/2005, you wrote:
Odd regarding the Vonage connection. Their sitting on UU from where I
can see and I have excellent transit to them from Comcast.
I'm on Sprint, and the service was fine for a year and a half. In recent
months it deteriorated to the point where more often than
At 09:00 PM 2/15/2005, you wrote:
Although RFC2476 was published in December 1998, its amazing
how few mail providers support the Message Submission protocol
for e-mail on Port 587. Even odder, some mail providers
use other ports such as 26 or 2525, but not the RFC recommended
Port 587 for remote
At 02:33 PM 12/9/2004, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ?
You can also make whois information private, usually for an additional fee.
I wonder
At 06:33 PM 11/29/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-nov-04, at 5:20, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you
would get to a point where
At 12:25 PM 11/27/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 27-nov-04, at 17:43, Paul Vixie wrote:
those of us who prefer static assignment + dhcp6 over EUI64 find a /64 to
be an obscene waste of address space on a per-lan (or per-vlan) basis, but
sadly there are already some cool wireless gadgets
At 04:46 PM 11/25/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST, Daniel Senie said:
Seems to me we wrote a document some years ago about how to address this.
If the upstream ISP isn't willing to filter at their edges, then write
contract language that the client is required
At 07:32 PM 11/24/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 PST, Crist Clark said:
Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6
No, they just emit the traffic anyhow. Often it
At 07:11 PM 11/24/2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key
*** Alert:Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
*** Signer: Owen DeLong (General Purpose Personal Key) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0x0FE2AA3D)
*** Signed:
At 11:34 PM 11/16/2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last
week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be
enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the
At 11:17 AM 11/9/2004, Simon Lockhart wrote:
In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
So I'm not allowed to send stuff to my printers at home or in the office, to
be picked up by my wife, or a colleague, wherever I am on the Internet?
That's fine, if that's what network policy
At 02:36 PM 11/8/2004, you wrote:
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should
simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be
useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918
space is today.
At 04:17 PM 11/8/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #1: Lab use. People should NEVER, EVER pick random space from
public space for doing experiments in the lab. Sooner or later something
leaks, and people get really honked off. This happened a LOT with IPv4
At 10:10 PM 11/8/2004, Randy Bush wrote:
To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What
matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
space, and what you need to use it for. A
At 05:02 PM 10/18/2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1
which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of
Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on
god's green earth do
At 05:41 PM 10/11/2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:58:59AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, I'll tell ya,
lad.
Listen to me: It's called a best current practice for a
reason -- people should do it. Not sit and around
At 07:51 PM 10/11/2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:03:08PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
I've removed the rest of your message, talking about which vendors do or
don't have what capabilities. While I agree it'd be nice if more vendors
offered automated tools
flows, perhaps you might think about how your naming and
other policies affect how others see your outflow. Cooperation makes things
better for everyone.
--
-
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amaranth
At 05:52 PM 9/16/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote:
We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound
together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI.
I have two questions:
1. Which technology is
At 03:23 PM 8/4/2004, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Drew Weaver wrote:
It is generally the responsibility of the ISP to provide the outgoing
mail transport for your connected users.
This BCP seems to be changing. The new BCP which seems to be evolving
requires customers to
At 10:05 AM 7/23/2004, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
| dns servers, and change a third level domain
At 11:56 AM 7/22/2004, you wrote:
Have anyone experienced hardware failure related to electrical spikes
coming into your datacenters or equipment locations via the telco
facilities? I am referring specifically to copper facilities for DS1's,
etc. I know that the telco must maintain good
At 12:50 AM 6/6/2004, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Mike Lewinski wrote:
And that provides protection against MITM attacks how?
kerberised telnet can be encrypted (typically DES - sufficient to guard MITM).
Am I the only one who really likes devices to handle their own login
At 08:04 AM 6/3/2004, Krichbaum, Eric wrote:
Because there are legitimate reasons for async routing.
DirectPC/Isat/etc. (Satelite based services) come to mind immediately.
DirecPC has had satellite return path for a long time. Their older systems
with dialup/cable for upstream involved loading of
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:16:44 PDT, Eric Kuhnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The part about Telnet is truly scary... Among people who have clue,
the biggest reason I have heard to continue running ssh1 is for
emergency access via hand-held smartphones or other pocket sized
devices. The
urban areas.
-- Jonathan
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote:
Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The
company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through
rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell
At 10:54 AM 5/4/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
If you follow these steps outlined by SANS you should be able to
successfully update
and NOT get infected. This is short, easy, fully documented (with
pictures :)
http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1298
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Daniel Senie
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:39 AM
To: Sean Donelan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: Worms versus Bots
At 10:54 AM 5/4/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
If you
At 05:56 PM 4/22/2004, Dan Hollis wrote:
Is there any way to move BGP completely out-of-band?
I know multihop may be out of the question but maybe someone should write
up a proposal for PTP links. :-)
BGP over PPP? Could be specified, but that'd require replacing the use of
TCP. Might be a bit
At 10:26 AM 4/14/2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:09:39 + (UTC), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
You, sure, how about the people who are not really computer literate and
use SMTP AUTH to send their mail from various places? Remember that
convinience almost always outweighs
At 02:41 PM 3/29/2004, Doug Dever wrote:
Previously, Daniel Senie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
An additional note: some of the small to mid-sized propane/natural gas
units come as packaged systems with a generator and transfer switch. These
can be a good value and work well too. Do some shopping
At 03:21 AM 2/28/2004, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2004-02-27-18:43:50, Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
With Vonage you have to tell them where you are located so they can set
your 911 service up to the proper 911 center.
You can take your Vonage with you. Some people do this. It's
At 02:49 PM 2/27/2004, Jeff Shultz wrote:
** Reply to message from Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Feb
2004 21:19:48 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
20 years ago, 911 was able to say unless you're the rare beast with a
cell
phone, basing it on the physical service address that the
At 11:12 AM 2/22/2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
Would anyone be interested in receiving a text or BGP feed of IPs of hosts
known/suspected to be compromised and used as parts of DDOS attacks? Would
anyone be interested in contributing their BGP views?
We have (and I'm sure we're not isolated) been
At 05:43 AM 2/20/2004, you wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Honestly, I do not know about OSPF (or BGP) on Windows, however, you
can just static route to the Windows box(es). Sure, if the OS hangs,
the interface will stay up and the static route will still push bits at
At 03:13 PM 2/11/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave Crocker said:
what about port 25 blocking that is now done by many access providers?
this makes it impossible for mobile users, coming from those providers,
to
At 08:40 AM 2/9/2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We need to add email sending capability to both POP
and IMAP so that eventually we can all block port 25
entirely from broadband/dialup edges.
What's wrong with port 587 (rfc 2476 sec. 3.1) and requiring SMTP AUTH
(rfc
At 08:58 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:
Hi,
When investigating our mail queue it seems we have quite a lot of mails
which
are stuck in transit...
Whats happening is we're accepting the mail as the primary MX for the
domain but
the user has setup a forwarding to another account at another ISP, they
At 10:13 AM 2/3/2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 08:58 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:
snip
Why must systems accept mail that's virus laden or otherwise not desired
at a site?
The bounce you refer to invariably ends up going to the wrong
person(s), so that's an exceptionally BAD idea
At 07:37 PM 1/29/2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nicole wrote:
In the past few days our AOL users have been reporting serious problems
Several Brickshelf users have complained about the new blurry images
problem using AOL. I have not heard any reports
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
