On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:39 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://xml.coverpages.org/iodef.html
SO, is it generally accepted to use IODEF to report non-SMTP abuse
(web/port scans, etc)?Everyone seems to be on the SMTP bandwagon
this week, what about the miscreant customers of Internet
http://www.google.com/reader/m/view/?source=mobilepack&v=2.1.4&rlz=1H2GGLE_en&i=-3701578819353178822&c=CMOjuszq3ZEC&n=1
On 2/24/08, Max Tulyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it was NOT a typo. This was a test, much more important test for
> this world than last american anti-satellite m
On Feb 8, 2008 3:38 PM, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you think the US Embassy in Moscow really trusts the Moscow telephone
> company?
No, but I do wonder if they open a ticket with them when the lines go
down. ;-)
Btw, armored cars are utilized to transport $$, and people expect
On Feb 4, 2008 9:33 AM, Rod Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's obviously the KGB, which wants the world to be dependent on Russia for
> oil
:-)
On a more serious note... who benefits from repairing of these lines?
-Jim P.
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 22:13 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 10:04 PM, Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > If there was, I sure would not join it. It'd be full of "I cannot send
> > mail to your domain blah blah"
> >
>
> Been to a MAAWG meeting yet? Or been o
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:53 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:33:57 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
>
> > Please only reply to the list, not to From:/Reply-To: AND the list
>
> You could at least have set a Reply-To: so that those people who mindlessly
>
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:31 -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> No, they aren't in the business to teach someone
> who's been in the industry all his life, and run
> Managed Server Companies for over 11 years...
Define "run"... you have piqued my curiosity on this issue.
Please only reply
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:45 -0400, Geo. wrote:
> Second, the more people on your network running fileshare network software
> and sharing, the less backbone bandwidth your users are going to use when
> downloading from a fileshare network because those on your network are going
> to supply full
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:55 +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:
> The problem is that the customers are using too much traffic for what is
> provisioned.
Nope. Not sure where you got that from. With P2P, it's others outside
the Comcast network that are over saturating the Comcast customers'
bandwidth.
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 17:10 -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
> I have Comcast business service in my office, and residential service
> at home. I use CentOS for some stuff, and so tried to pull a set of
> ISOs over BitTorrent. First few came through OK, now I can't get
> BitTorrent to do much of anyt
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:20 -0700, chuck goolsbee wrote:
> >Or say, lots of processing somewhere short term - like video
> >editing/rendering/whatever at the Olympic games.
>
> Rendering maybe, but editing needs human space...
Not even rendering... streaming it back to your established producti
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 17:07 -0500, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
> - Disaster Recovery
I can see portable generators being part of DR, but not one or more
portable data centers. How long would it take you to start up a second
instance of all the hosts and devices you have in a data centers? Isn't
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 19:54 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> As an experiment, I wanted to try to summarize all the answers given on
> this question, hope this helps someone.
>
> Suggestions given:
>
> * modem and TAP gateway
> ** TAP numbers at http://www.avtech.com/Support/TAP/index.htm
> ** So
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 14:12 -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 AT&T to
> the time it hits my phone. I'm using @mobile.mycingular.com because
> mmod
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:53 -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Hex Star wrote:
>
> > Why would someone in the ISP industry try to spread a virus? Ironically I
> > suppose a ISP admin may have their own computer infected... :P
>
> If you could read the header, the question you would ha
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 19:16 -0700, Hex Star wrote:
> Why would someone in the ISP industry try to spread a virus?
> Ironically I suppose a ISP admin may have their own computer
> infected... :P
Look at all the anti-spam software that uses perl yet the cpan
mirror ops lists is throwing out a
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 11:10 -0400, David Coulson wrote:
> It still says 11:00am
>
> *looks at watch*
could you possibly be looking at cached data? I see no current problems
listed at http://status.cogentco.com (last updated at 11:10 EDT)
-Jim P.
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 19:26 -0700, Rusty Hodge wrote:
> > Think that's good? It gets better
> >
> > http://valleywag.com/tech/breaking/angry-mob-gathers-outside-sf-
> > datacenter-282053.php
>
> That article states that only Colo 4 was affected.
>
> I'm in Colo 7 and it was affected as wel
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:54 -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
> I don't know if this is true, but it's more exciting reading than
> blaming it on a 'power outage'...
>
>
> http://valleywag.com/tech/breakdowns/a-drunk-employee-kills-all-of-the-websites-you-care-about-282021.php
Think that's good? It
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 18:52 -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> so Cisco had to do an emergency patch for some of their larger
> customers.
or Cisco had to spend time and money getting one of their larger
customers to actually apply pre-existing patches. I've see that happen
all too often ove
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:59 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, there *is* no "*other* other side"? That must be what Roderick meant.. ;)
And he just happens to have an email addr that suggests he's involved
with a company that sells that *other* other side. Just saying.
Don't get me wrong..
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:27 -0400, Roderick S. Beck wrote:
> the real news is that one of the TransAtlantic cables has had one
> of their two cables severed. Repair is not expected until after
> the US July 4th holiday.
>
> So none of the customers on that well known system have any ring
> prot
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, Matthew Black wrote:
> What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> it out?
Can you better define "attempted to hack", please.
-Jim P.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 21:59 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Stupid bug but its not reproduceable every time and with little impact
> (ok it does open small window for abuse) except size of file (correct
> size of is about 117-120k).
Stupid bugs severely impact automated processes. ;-) I'm t
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 11:24 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:08 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
> >> completewhois has lists in various forms of bogon and hijacked
> >> networks.
> >>
> >> http://completewhois.com/bogons/bogons_usage.h
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 14:43 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> One of the reasons that registrars are slow to take down sites that are paid
> with a credit card is because there is little financial incentive to do
> so.
Also there is the "customer numbers" affect, most often seen with public
companies or
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:48 -0700, chuck goolsbee wrote:
> >There's at least one datacenter in Seattle that when the customer "cards"
> >in, lights up the floor to their cabinet Been a while since I've been in
> >it, but I remember it "USED" to do that (fisher, internap I think?)
>
> Perh
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:43 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, I think the question is, why to new domain additions have to be
> lumped in with all other zone changes and updated within minutes? Why
> can't new domain additions be treated specially and be held back for a
> day or two in order
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 22:07 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Todd Christell wrote:
>
> > Sorry if this is OT but we are having a discussion with our HR
> > department. We are in the process of getting a 24 X 7 NOC in place and
> > HR has a problem with calling them NOC Spe
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:58 -0800, Ashe Canvar wrote:
> Could someone from Comcast please contact us ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
>
> Customers behind Comcast on the east coast cannot get to our
> 216.219.126.0 prefix in Santa Barbara, CA. Comcast's peering with Cox
> on ashbbbrj02-ae0.0.r2.as.cox.net may
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 17:57 -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Anyone know what's going on?
Last year, :-), Interland dedicated hosting went to Peer1 and Interland
web hosting went to/became web.com.
-Jim P.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 18:01 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the rest of the article is equally horrific in its maltreatment
> and ignorance of facts.
It's an article in a CxO type magazine did anyone really expect
anything better?
-Jim P.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 10:12 -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
>
> Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
> backbones:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
Aren't there some Telco laws wrt cross-state, but still interlata, calls
no
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:33 -0700, Berkman, Scott wrote:
> There is this Network Management theory called Out of Band Management.
Which is rarely properly applied. I lost count of the data centers that
block mgmt traffic from external customers, but leave internal systems
(which are often "sublet
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 15:07 -0500, Matthew Walker wrote:
>
> So this holiday weekend, don't forget to clean your pipes. :)
Pipes?!?! I thought they were Tubes? :-)
-Jim P.
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 12:36 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> > > Um, no. I would, however, be willing to have them inform the primary
> > > contact that the key had not been returned and then bill the customer
> > >
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 18:58 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 09:06 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Savvis wants to retain your ID if they issue a cage-key to you.
> >
> > If they
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 09:06 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Savvis wants to retain your ID if they issue a cage-key to you.
If they (or others) asked you to let them hold $50 cash to cover their
key/lock replacement costs would you feel more comfortable?
-Jim P.
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 11:36 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >(Hint - how much smaller would the spam problem be if end users actually
> >looked at their cable or DSL modem and wondered why the Tx/Rx lights were
> >on steady even though nothing was apparently happening?)
>
> Given the amount of
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 19:56 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Has anyone figured out a remote but lawful way to repair zombie machines?
Very interesting question. I personally believe that OS EULAs and ISP
ToS guidelines provide for an ISP or an OS mfg (i.e. Microsoft) to force
updates and fixes vi
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 00:06 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Question: What could cause the first trace below to succeed, but the
> second trace to fail?
>
> $ mtr 69.61.40.35
> HOST: blueLoss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst
> 1. 192.168.3.1
Question: What could cause the first trace below to succeed, but the
second trace to fail?
$ mtr 69.61.40.35
HOST: blueLoss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst
1. 192.168.3.1 0.0% 14.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
2. 73.62.48.10.0% 1
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 13:42 -0800, chuck goolsbee wrote:
> >Greetings, NANOGers. I've got a mail cluster that's been spooling about
> >5 messages for the past week or so (with very little drain and
> >traffic passing), and my mail admin reports that attempted contacts to
> >the Yahoo Postmast
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:21 -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Rick Wesson wrote:
>
> > I'm expecting to post a weekly report once a month to nanog, would
> > this be disruptive?
Hmmm, a weekly report once a month, this should be interesting. :-)
-Jim P.
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 17:36 +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> So... it sorta looks like both /24's are behind something in StLouis,
> Missouri ( to me atleast ).
My tests from 2 years ago showed the same thing, both /24s were behind
the same system in Exodus' NYC DC in Manhattan (IIRC). That is wh
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 18:01 -0400, Elijah Savage wrote:
> For FYI :) I realize that ICMP is not the best way to test and it is
> not a true indication of slowness or the presence of a problem.
Two questions for everybody...(any and all responses appreciated, even
if the reply mentions botnets or
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:41 -0700, Matt Ghali wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing *.register.com down (including ns*) from everywhere. Just a
> > heads-up.
>
> I'll take your word on exhaustively checking every possible
> address. BTW, do you mean nameservers
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 05:51 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Florida law, Title 13 section 322.32(2), "Unlawful use of license" says
> "[i]t is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... for any person ... [t]o lend
> his or her driver's license to any other person or knowingly permit the use
> thereof
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 18:57 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> But presumably it would need to be stolen. Wouldn't the tech notice that
> happening... Or is there some way the colo security guy can clone it
> undetected?
I've been in and out of several colos that require you to leave your ID
(passpor
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 18:30 -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> All, this seems seriously NON-lame to me. Of course, testing and fixing
> the bug before it was put out there would have been less so.
Testing something like this would be difficult without duplicating
everyone's email into a developme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henry Linneweh wrote:
> Every where I go that uses MySql is hozed and I can not access the pages
>
I too have seen this some today, however late last night (~2AM EDT) I
saw it much more. Not sure what the issue is however. On a possibly
related f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here's a thought most airlines offer expedited freight service (i.e.
Delta Dash). One could seal their lappy up in a box, mark it
accordingly, and ship to for hold at destination airport. Chances are
it will arrive before they do.
- -Jim P.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Cohen wrote:
> 2. with regard to safety of laptops, if you mean that exec's are
> targets of robberies, than this further lends value i suspect of
> keeping everything on the network and having passwords to reach the
> network from the laptop,
Michael K. Smith wrote:
It was a breaker in the main bypass from city power to the generators. The
breaker failed to close so the generators happily fed power to nowhere.
Then, everyone's UPS failed and down we/they went. The outage lasted
approximately 26 minutes.
Nobody checked to make s
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I have over 100 domains on my personal web server. _NONE_ of them
are parked, although not all have web pages (and of the ones that do,
none have ads).
I tried not to attribute malice on the part of domain parking operators.
I
Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
"Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Come on Sean, this "very few disruptions" stuff is below your usual
standards. The least you can do to help us pass the time in this damn heat
is to recount a few go
Anyone from opentransfer.com around? I've tried postmaster@, but got no
response. I have an email issue wrt mail22.opentransfer.com, can
someone please contact me offlist.
TIA,
-Jim P.
longer feel a need to be concerned about them.
Thanks all,
-Jim P.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Feel free to clue me in on this please... ;-)
What is www.gigablast.com? And why is it constantly performing
"questionable" queries (mostly http) across every IP that I have access
to check.
!!!
/Pr!!f!!rencesUtilisateur
/WikiHomePage
/HilfeZuParsern
/AiutoModello
/GewenstePaginas
/HilfeZu!!berschriften
-Jim P.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Feel free to clue me in on this please... ;-)
What is www.gigablast.com? And why is it constantly performing
"questionable" quer
Feel free to clue me in on this please... ;-)
What is www.gigablast.com? And why is it constantly performing
"questionable" queries (mostly http) across every IP that I have access
to check.
I get a could of thousand hits (mostly questionable non-existing URL
requests) from that ip (66.15
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
I'm immoderate. But I believe that Popovitch was speaking of different
mailing lists than this one.
Yes that is true, at least the part about the lists. ;-) I run a
mailing list discussion system for a few non-profits, it is those lists
(and their admins) that I was s
William Allen Simpson wrote:
The spammers have figured out how to bypass the NANOG members-only
posting, in this case by pretending to be John Fraizer and sending
directly to trapdoor.
On our public list servers we now require admin approval of all new
subscriptions as well as email verificat
Hi, sorry for the noise..
We need a clueful Comcast person to start checking out problems in their
Atlanta headends. Over on the ALE (Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts) list
there are a lot of highly educated engineers all seeing the same ongoing
packet loss problems at multiple points. Calls to C
Steve Gibbard wrote:
Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's n
David Schwartz wrote:
The major problem with this is that many other governments have
"dangerous
ideas" that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates
Matthew Black wrote:
For what it's worth, I received a very nice e-mail and had an
extended telephone conversation with a third-tier support
manager from AOL. They do respond and that's why I placed my
original post on this thread.
I too received contact from AOL, and they have been extremel
Matthew Black wrote:
We've noticed a surge in 421 e-mail errors from AOL.
Message soft bounced for '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', '4.3.2 - Not accepting messages
at this time ('421', [': (DYN:T1)
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/421dynt1.html', 'SERVICE NOT
AVAILABLE']) []'
It seems as though
Lincoln Dale wrote:
I suggest you talk to some of the folks you work with that have to deal with
synchronous replication.
In the world of storage networking & synchronous I/O, typically anything
higher than 1 msec round-trip latency is too high.
True, but 2ms latency in syncing a backup syst
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
My guess (this being NJ) is an aftereffect of t
(sorry for the interruption)
Before I go and spend hours on the phone with mind-numbing low-level
"support" kids Does anyone know about any content caching issues
between Yahoo and Comcast? For the past few days I have noticed that
news content on http://my.yahoo.com is 2 weeks old when
Jerry Pasker wrote:
The point is: What's more damaging? Being open with the maps to
EVERYONE can see where the problem areas are so they can design around
them? (or chose not to) or pulling the maps, and reports, and sticking
our heads in the sand, and hoping that security through obscurit
I want to say, from an outsider's perspective, that I whole heartily applaud
GoDaddy on the actions they took and the consistent professionalism exhibited
by their tech support representative. Despite obvious (and heavily edited)
calls to the same agent, the consumer was informed in a professi
I'm sutting PCs down and going on vacation for a while. Seriously. :-)
TIA to those of you working to protect your customers and therefore other
systems as well.
-Jim P.
- Original Message
From: Wil Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:53
I miss the endless debates. Is *everyone* Christmas shopping?
Here's a thought to ponder
With the thousands of datacenters that exist with IPv4 cores, what will it take
to get them to move all of their infrastructure and customers to IPv6? Can it
even be done or will they just run IPv6
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:06:57PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Dennis Dayman 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
Randy Bush wrote:
As others pointed out (to me as well), for a _man in the middle_ attack
(e.g. impersonating www.paypal.com) it is necessary to play ARP games or
otherwise insert yourself in the flow of traffic.
not really. you just need to be there first with a bogus, redirecting,
dns resp
Erik Sundberg wrote:
Any reason why the whois.register.com would say "You have exceeded your
maximum number of queries.". Tried it from 3 differnet boxes that have 3
differnent public ip address. Tried the web gui too and I get the same
lookup error. This looks specific to whois.register.com.
Michael Tokarev wrote:
www.dshield.org, www.mynetwatchman.org ?
That should be: www.mynetwatchman.COM ;-)
Both are excellent resources.
-Jim P.
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:32 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
> > That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic
> > Internet theme.
>
> Uhhh... why does a dotcom need an Internet evangelist?
He meets the requirement of having a Phd. Google must have hired some
r
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 17:55 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> > I assume that an Indian intelligence agency would
> > be more concerned about things like hidden remote
> > control or data collection services on the systems.
>
>
> Exactly. The Chinese version of Cisco's CALEA code with different acce
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:19 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 14:10 -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> > A glue record for a .com domain (nextbus.com) is wrong, and I'm running
> > into a brick wall trying to get it fixed.
>
> The problem is that the
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 14:10 -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> A glue record for a .com domain (nextbus.com) is wrong, and I'm running
> into a brick wall trying to get it fixed.
The problem is that the A and PTR records for your domain servers don't
match up. See the "Mismatched glue" section of you
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:29 -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > even without stiffling the heap check via crashing_already (i.e. a
> > 'fix' is developed for that weakness), is the 30-60 second window
> > sufficient to do serious operational damage. i.e. what coul
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 18:52 -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 18:51 -0400, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> > > Hi. This is the TMDA program at adns.net.
> > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> > > addresses.
> > > This is a permanent er
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 18:00 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:49 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
> > FYI: The IP address of the mail server that sends out NANOG list
> > messages
> > (198.108.1.26) is once again on most of the major RBLs.
>
> I only see
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:49 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
> FYI: The IP address of the mail server that sends out NANOG list
> messages
> (198.108.1.26) is once again on most of the major RBLs.
I only see it on one listing and that is for dnsbl.sorbs.net.
http://www.completewhois.com/cgi-bin/rbl_lo
I've seen where AOL recently (past 2 weeks) will temporarily suspend
accepting bulk (mailinglists) email for up to 3 hours due to suspected
spam, even from whitelisted IPs. All queued email eventually flows,
presumably after being verified by humans. No related SCOMP/TOS
notifications are ever r
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 00:19 -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> Indeed it does, but I have to question whether the cellphone decision
> was well-thought-out. I really can't believe it was.
Are spontaneous "moments notice" decisions ever well-thought-out? Take
this scenario away from terrorism and a
--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was not speculating. From the post:
>
> > Then we have this:
> > http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html
> >
> > "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area
> > transit hubs, bridges and
--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, it's damned if you take stupid action, damned if you do not do
> something you should.
>
> People in charge of our security should not be allowed to take
> whatever action comes to mind in the name of security.
Then who should, a
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 19:20 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
> There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were
> involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any
> recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to
> believe that the threat to the New York
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:30 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:49:54 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
>
> > The problem with the above is that your (or your users') email delivery
> > is then dependent upon the configuration and timeouts of someone else&
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 12:02 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > The principle purpose of the secondary mx, in this case, is to accept
> > email for the primary mx during periods where the primary is down
>
> and the sending smtp server has no spool. i.e. no useful
> purpose.
Presumably sending smtp s
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:35 -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> Generally there's little reason to run a secondary MX. Email will
> queue if the sole MX is offline or unreachable. Email will queue at
> senders' mail servers.
The problem with the above is that your (or your users') email delivery
is
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:27 -0500, Adi Linden wrote:
> > The first one goes up and down more than it probably should. :-)
>
> Make your secondary mx aware of all the valid recipient addresses.
Thank you Adi, Chris, Randy, Daniel, etc. ;-)
Syncing virtual/valid users seems to be the preferred m
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 10:05 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > However, is seems the problem is over on the secondary MX (Postfix)
> > which only has a list of legit relay domains for pMX. When pMX is back
> > online sMX fwds it's queue, but at that point pMX rejects to sMX...who
> > then rejects to Se
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:42 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Should undeliverable email (5.1.1, User unknown) be directed
> > to /dev/null rather than responded to?
>
> one current fashion is to try to catch it as early in the smtp
> receipt process as possible and reject the mail to the smtp
> sende
I know this is an email-only question, however the value of the feedback
from NANOG is greater than elsewhere, imho.
Should undeliverable email (5.1.1, User unknown) be directed
to /dev/null rather than responded to?
I was always under the impression that it was nice to respond with a
polite m
I've seen an almost astronomical increase in bogus smtp connections
("did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to") within the
past 18 hours. Up to +1100 today vs the usual 4 or 5.
Anyone else?
-Jim P.
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
