On Mar 16, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I think it was Abovenet that blackholed a /24 of (I want to say MAPS,
but that's not right) an anti-spam-RBL sometime pre-1999?
ORBS, and the only reason it became such a big deal was that Abovenet
was the upstream of ORBS' upstream.
On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:22 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
except that even the 'good guys' make mistakes. Belt + suspenders
please... is it really that hard for a network service provider to
have a prefix-list on their customer bgp sessions?? L3 does it, ATT
does it, Sprint does it, as do
On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
IPv6 capable nameservers are supposed to use EDNS (see IPv6
node requirements). The roots can be tuned to preference
A vs records. Most/all currently maintained caching
servers support EDNS now or the next
On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
2. What's the technical terminology for the request for ATT to
simply
start advertising our netblock called? I'm wondering if they're not
understanding our request.
According to the cached copy of ATT's bgp4policy.doc at:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jared Mauch:
Within the next 2 major software releases (Microsoft OS) they're
going to by default require signed binaries. This will be the
only viable
solution to the malware threat. Other operating systems may follow.
On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:41, Wolfgang Tremmel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cix.net wrote:
Am 15.10.2007 um 07:09 schrieb Bradley Urberg Carlson:
I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due
to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at
the IX and via my
On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Mike Leber wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:
I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to
the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX
and via my own transit customers. I normally use
On May 16, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
What should I expect?
I am seeing ~350 from a vendor provided mpls cloud to a site in
Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
Depends entirely on your provider's path as some (less than
useful) data points, from Cambridge MA to
On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:28 PM, David Lemon wrote:
www.homedepot.ca
Akaimai
It's Akamai, and I'm contacting you off-list
On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:19 PM, John Payne wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:28 PM, David Lemon wrote:
www.homedepot.ca
Akaimai
It's Akamai, and I'm contacting you off-list
Just for clarification (as I've already been ping'd off list)... I
was merely correcting the typo in the OPs post :p
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:13:08PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
1) DNS servers which are not configured to blackhole IANA-reserved
network blocks (read: the majority) will blindly try to reach
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Last time I spoke to them, the Juniper and Cisco versions only ran on
a subset of their routers. Their claim was that almost nobody had
asked for this so it doesn't have any priority.
'the
On Nov 29, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Seems relevant.
Any word from vendors on supporting images? I found some old
presentations that said Juniper (ERX) and Redback had announced
supporting images and Cisco had an unannounced version, but thats all.
Begin
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is
looking
for information on the White House could land somewhere obscene
through
entering a web address that appears obvious and logical.
Who gets to decide that?
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
but it's a perfect example of why GSLB based on DNS ain't perfect.
What would be a better solution then?
utopia would be for DNS to be enhanced in some manner such that the
'end
user ip-address' became visible in the DNS request.
utopia
On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
well, i see that fezhead is dead. but 3-party TCP is alive and well:
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~best/res/projects/DPRClusterLoadBalancing/.
see also http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShame.htm
and
On Jun 20, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Amar wrote:
Please contact med off list.
Yes, several. Sent my akamai address offlist.
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Chris Kuethe wrote:
As for an attempt at a technical control, maybe set up a box with Tor
on it, get a list of exit servers and null-route them automagically.
The TOR abuse FAQ is here:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
- Original Message - From: neal rauhauser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NANGO nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: abuse.clue @ Sprint? (phish in barrel, pictures @ 11:00)
Got this forwarded to me by an
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual device, and
to do so in a scaleable way.
Only if
On Feb 28, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the DNS
for the end hosts come from?
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
The biggest problem is when customer's link to provider A goes down
and
inbound traffic must flow through provider B. This necessitates some
sort of path between A and B where more-specifics can flow.
Are most of the multihomers REALLY
On Jan 30, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
network operators be able to meet all three of your
requirements?
We have such a database (used by Verio
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Sam Crooks wrote:
The password string is encrypted in the Profile, however, when you
save
it...
http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/bin/cisco-decode
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not
_my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access
than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.
That is something that has always confused me
On Oct 20, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
AS-PATH length?
the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
7018, then it will always prefer it.
And this is a good reason not to cross tiers of your transit
providers. Either have
On Oct 20, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Is 7018 preferring 19094 over 701 regardless of
AS-PATH length?
the convention is that, if 19094 is a customer of
7018, then it will always prefer it.
and it was confirmed that this is the case for the
prefix in question
And this is a
On Oct 19, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
Many customers would rather not multihome directly, and prefer set
it and
forget it connectivity. It's much easier to maintain a multi-pipe
connection that consists of one static default route than a pipe to
multiple
carriers. The former
On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Tony Li wrote:
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
either.
But one won't need to upgrade a Tier
On Oct 14, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
designing a solution
which misses the stated requirements of many folks actually operating
networks
So far it's missing some of the stated requirements (reasons for
multihoming) listed in the charter... well I was going to cut-n-paste
On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:31 AM, 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 model (to
put
it lightly)
On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 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
On Oct 5, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
I opened a billing/support ticket with Cogent. I'm not planning
on paying my bill or continuing the contract if they cannot
provide full BGP tables and full Internet transport (barring
outages). Luckily I have 2
On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
Thanks!
Am I reading your CENTR presentation correctly as saying that you're
announcing all four prefixes from all five locations?
I read it as they have the ability to announce all four from any
location, but by default, they don't...
On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
You can only be a tier 1 and maintain global reachability if you
peer
with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and
Cogent
is close enough (at least
On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Micheal Patterson wrote:
PSINet was on the verge of being a tier 1 as they had bilateral
peering with the majority of the other tier 1 carriers at the time.
Now, when Cogent took over the PSINet fiber backbone, I've no idea if
they kept those peering points hot
On Sep 28, 2005, at 1:28 AM, Peter Dambier wrote:
http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Actually, this makes VERY interesting reading... not NANOG fodder, but
I highly recommend anyone considering using public-root reads the
documents there... especially the latest ones, with Joe Baptista
that market increase. As a network engineer, I keep
getting the feeling I'm missing out on some great drugs.
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
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 the
IPv6 arena.
Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
don't know if
On Sep 12, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Rather, what is needed is a mechanism that allows congestion control
and
mechanisms to feed into the address selection algorithms, so that when
a
link does become saturated, some traffic (but not all! ;-), shifts to
alternate addresses.
Not
On Aug 3, 2005, at 7:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Thank you for your reply.
Makoto san, can you provide an ip-address within your assigned range
that people can ping to test?
You can ping to 126.66.0.30/8.
Just out of curiosity... are you going to continue to announce each
On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:31:13PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
...
Unless I'm mistaken (and my first report hasn't arrived yet, so maybe
I
am) this is more of a heads up! the following addresses within your
network are listed on DNSBLs than
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
My various networked devices each get two addresses in this way. When
they talk to some remote device that has a shim6 element in its
protocol stack, I get all the benefits that I would expect to achieve
by multi-homing: if one provider goes
On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
2a) Get the client to form a BGP session with the cisco3550 and
announce there network(s) to it. The cisco3550 announces our internal
address range to the client. Over the top of the this another BGP
(multihop) is setup between the client
On Apr 22, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Apologies for the late reply, but T-Mobile's US GPRS network hands out
RFC1918 space as well.
Ah, that depends on if you're on WAP, T-Mobile Internet or T-Mobile VPN.
The VPN service is exactly the same as the Internet one, except that it
gives
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Peter John Hill wrote:
Do you understand anycast? Do you understand how different operating
systems react to failures of configured dns servers?
Do you? Relying 100% on anycast is MUCH worse than not deploying
anycast at all. Spend some time thinking about various
On Mar 29, 2005, at 5:37 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
The answers from a recursive servers won't be marked authoritative (AA
bit not
set), and so correct behaviour is to discard (BIND will log a lame
server
message as well by default) these records.
As others have pointed out, BT
If your
On Mar 28, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
And to Randy's point about problems with open recursive nameservers...
abusers have been known to cache hijack. Register a domain,
configure an authority with very large TTLs, seed it onto known open
recursive nameservers, update domain record to
On Mar 27, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Larger providers have the problem that you can't easily filter
'customers' from 'non-customers' in a sane and scalable fashion.
Hrm? Larger providers tend to have old swamp space lying around :)
Throw the resolvers on a netblock that's
On Feb 21, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Especially in lite of the comment you posted and the fact that
developing
countries seem to be the major sources of SPAM these days.
a) spam, not SPAM (which is a tasty luncheon meat from Hormel)
b) s/sources/entry points/ The vast majority of
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Also, it doesn't appear that this issue effects the Mac software (at
least, I didn't see the Mac products in the Symantec vulnerability
list), only Windows products.
I got a new antivirus base for OS/X via liveupdate at approximately
11:45 EST
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Michael Loftis wrote:
I haven't had a chance to pose the question to the list
And yet you've posted about it twice here. Not sure why you think
that NANOG is an appropriate place to whine about something you've
haven't asked for help with in the right place
On Jan 21, 2005, at 1:14 PM, matthew zeier wrote:
If this is OT, my apologies.
Trying to setup an INOC-DBA account after it was mentioned here a
couple weeks back. I'm stuck after setting up a user account waiting
for the organization's admin (me) to approve it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hasn't
On Dec 15, 2004, at 4:33 AM, James Ashton wrote:
Hey out there.
I am in need of a list of community strings that REACH.COM accepts.
Does anyone have a list of these?
For the last several months I have been trying to get traffic coming
from reach to traverse a different path to my AS. This is
On Oct 22, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Robert Scott wrote:
Any body else having trouble with Akamai site this AM. Started about
an
hour ago.
It's useful to have your IP address and your nameserver's IP address
when asking about Akamai stuff.
C:\tracert www.symantec.com
Tracing route to
On Aug 13, 2004, at 1:59 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
For another data point, I checked Randy's setup. After all, he was
the WG chair for quite awhile, so he'll have a clear preference.
Like Paul, different servers visible from the root. Unlike Paul,
much longer TTLs.
Uhh... why are you
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:20 AM, joe wrote:
Anyone noticing issues with Akamai and their DNS stuff?
Just wondering because I'm seeing strange responses regarding
www.foxnews.com, in that one of the Cnames a20.g.akamai.com
is changing every 20 seconds, and sometimes no response at all.
Is it just
--On Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:17 AM -0700 Larry Pingree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Joe,
If only those who are approved email senders are allowed to be
accepted, this allows police, FBI, or DHS to go after only those who are
registered and abusing it. It's for the same purpose that we
get to see. - Larry Pingree
-Original Message-
From: John Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Larry Pingree
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Unplugging spamming PCs
--On Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:17 AM -0700 Larry Pingree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
--On Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:26 PM -0400 Pete Schroebel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I saw this coming two days ago but, nobody [Called]. Akamai's DNS was
failing apart and we thought that we were just being dns blackhole!
No, you didn't. You saw a different problem, asked me about it, and
--On Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:59 PM -0400 Pete Schroebel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I saw this coming two days ago but, nobody called. Akamai's DNS was
failing apart and we thought that we were just being dns blackhole!
No, you didn't. You saw a different problem, asked me about it, and didn't
--On Wednesday, June 9, 2004 8:03 PM -0700 matthew zeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In reality this isn't a problem for me but it is for those who don't know
how to configure their mail readers for a different outbound port.
A common counter argument is that those are the people who probably
--On Friday, May 21, 2004 6:50 PM -0700 Rodney Joffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess he's done slightly better than that ;-).
Place Name Prize
5 Avi Freeman(sic) (Philadelphia, PA) $90,000
August 17th, 10PM on ESPN. Having watched most of the final
--On Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:10 AM -0500 Stewart, William C (Bill),
RTSLS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or by using a blocking list that blocks the same users.
Unless you're using an ATT nameserver it seems...
--On Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:12 AM -0800 Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, like any tool, it's not inherently evil, it just depends how it's
used. And in all likelihood, if it's used with respect to England,
in all likelihood it'll be used in moderation, since England has some
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 AM -0800 william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as
far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even
included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block
--On Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:11 PM -0800 Henry Linneweh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have received almost 200 different spam messages from domains hosted
by this
spam-l is over that way -
google is also your friend
and do you have to keep sending multipart mail?
--On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know
how to protect their computer from virus infections.
However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer
before
--On Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:46 PM + Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a user who thinks they should not have to know
how to protect their computer from virus infections.
However, someone attending NANOG should at least have cleaned up slammer
before
Apparently this went out twice. Apologies for that - the wireless net went
away before my mail client claimed the smtp transaction finished.
--On Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:20 AM -0500 Jared Mauch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, We do filter our customers per their registered prefixes
for spoofed packets (rfc2267).
Well, of all the insane, anti-commerce, death of the net inducing ideas...
:)
THANK YOU
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:36 PM -0500 Daniel Golding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC,
informational or otherwise that clearly specifies that BGP announcements
to peers and transit providers must be aggregated to the greatest
--On Friday, October 31, 2003 1:27 PM -0500 Vachon, Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at
www.paymentech.com THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and
any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended
only
--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:11 PM -0400 Kai Schlichting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- BGP anycast, ideally suited for such forwarding proxies.
Anyone here feeling very adapt with BGP anycast (I don't) for
the purpose of running such a service? This is a solution that
has to be
--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 4:56 PM -0700 Dan Hollis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, John Payne wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:11 PM -0400 Kai Schlichting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- BGP anycast, ideally suited for such forwarding proxies.
Anyone here feeling
--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:52 AM -0400 Kai Schlichting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the [Hijacked] list:
The ARIN information has been updated to have up-to-date contact info for
the original owner, the original owners' ISP is announcing 4 /18s but
ATT is still announcing
Aside from Juniper, what are the options for wire rate filtering and policy
routing (for at least 1Gbps and say 500+kpps)?
As usual, private responses will result in a summary to the list.
Thanks
--On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:35 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Almost everyone filters customers. The large ISP's all have the
same opinion, if small to medium sized players abuse the system
they get depeered and become someone's customer aggressively filtered.
The large
--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:36 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0400, John Payne
wrote:
If this is true, then why do the european NAP mailing lists (which push
IRR filtering) have an almost constant stream of oops
--On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 4:22 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This question might be more suitable for inet-access, but it's down, so
I'm resending here:
Silly question:
If you have a customer who is doing their own primary DNS, but you are
doing their secondary DNS (on
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:14:44AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ontech/0,15918,462261,00.html
Except some of the loopholes he lists are now gone. All thats left
are political, charities, telephone surveyors and existing business
relationship calls.
And you
--On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 23:37 -0400 Steven M. Bellovin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I've gotten bounces from mail allegedly from me. It's not L3's
fault; this particular worm forges From: lines on its email.
fault is debatable. Because forgeries are now so common, particularly in
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 21:15 +0800 Steve Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Our whole netblock 202.154.64.0/18 seems to be barred from anything
.mil. Domain name resolution, MX, IP traceroute, the lot.
Anyone able to shed any light on this?
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a
--On Friday, May 30, 2003 11:00 -0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null
routes to large sections of international address space. Good luck
getting them removed
as this means they have a different definition of the internet
--On Friday, March 14, 2003 09:32:09 PM -0500 William Allen Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
After sending an email to a friend at a RoadRunner address, I see this in
my web access log:
24.30.199.228 - - [13/Mar/2003:15:11:25 -0500] CONNECT
security.rr.com:25 HTTP/1.0 404 535
snip
Forwarded by request.
-- Forwarded Message --
* * * SECURITY UPDATE FOR MULTI-ROUTER LOOKING GLASS * * *
A vulnerability has been discovered by the EnterZone staff in Multi-Router
Looking Glass versions 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.
Vulnerability:
If the MRLG admin has specified
--On Sunday, January 19, 2003 05:35:13 PM -0800 Roger Marquis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since fast.net/iuinc.com has not replied to our email or phone calls
we're looking for anyone with information on this company, its
owners or operators, and any history of network or SMTP abuse. All
help
UltraDNS, a member of the Internet Society, serves as the primary DNS
provider for the .org domain. In addition, UltraDNS acts as the primary
provider for .info and for the top-level domains of Ireland, Luxembourg,
Norway and nine other domains.
Really? .org ?
--On Monday, November 25, 2002 05:11:43 PM -0500 Todd Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.ultradns.com/news/021028.html
That doesn't come into effect until next year.
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:10:45AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a more accurate method to determine the country of origin for an
IP than the methods I've described above?
Yes, at least three companies have databases
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:21:04PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Is there a more accurate method to determine the country of origin for an
IP than the methods I've described above?
Several companies offer such services. I'd be happy to give some
pointers offlist.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Geo. wrote:
I am a postmaster for a state wide ISP and we maintain our own blacklist
along with usage of one other public blacklist, the spamcop blacklist.
Why spamcop and not spews?
My question is why a dnsbl that the *maintainer* of which says
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:06:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday morning, I noticed mail-abuse.org appeared to be down
(unreachable). I checked again, and it's still unreachable. In fact, I
can't even reach its name server.
I did some more looking last night, and it seems
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:36:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd settle for a requirement that dns servers have *basic* configuration
correct - I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:48:24AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo John!
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:24:40PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building
environment., etc
I've only been
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 02:12:36PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Concepcion writes:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs,
98 matches
Mail list logo
