On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:56:02AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I mentioned in my presentation at NANOG 42 in San Jose, the
biggest barrier we face in shrinking the time-to-exploit window
with regards
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 12:13:29PM -0400, Christina Klam wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Does someone have a contact name at mfa.gov.cn? When one of our users
tried to send an email to a host at mail.mfa.gov.cn, we discovered that
we are being blocked by mfa.gov.cn.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:25:44AM -0600, Frank Coluccio wrote:
This will be my only post on this subject after biting my tongue for several
days:)
Some members will appreciate this item I came across earlier, I'm sure. As
always, caveat emptor.
Another paranoid suggestion I have seen
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 05:52:41PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
If IP addresses don't identify anything, why do they collect and keep
them?
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't
enough to identify a person.
In
I am having trouble understanding why I cannot get an allocation of
any size, only an assignment. Unless I didn't read the documentation
correctly, there seems to be no way in hell that I can get PI v6
space of any size, which of course leads me to be disinterested
in v6.
--
-=[L]=-
Water
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ attribution to me missing ]
That's why some states (e.g. Texas) require that all toll calls be
dialed as 1+ _regardless of area code_, and local calls cannot be
dialed as 1+. If
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:29:15PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
You will never be sure you have picked up all, only the known ones. For
a compromised system, unless running tripwire or something, reinstall!
You can never be sure, that's why it's a backdoor/Trojan horse.
Its a nice start,
Is there anything that us folks out in the peanut gallery can
do to help, other than locally serving the panix.net zone
for panix.com?
--
-=[L]=-
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:57:08PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
Gadi,
The question that comes to mind is - what do you do to be prepared?
Well, for a start you can put a comment into the ICANN comments on
the new xfr policy. I did earler today. Next, you can,
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:31:10AM -0800, nanog gonan wrote:
I ask that the methodology of bannishment be posted to
the list, so we're all aware of the consequences of
too much OT. Is it permanent banishment or a
procedure similar to the one that William suggests?
How many warnings get
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Gary King wrote:
Quick show of hands, of the American citizens in here (of legal voting
age), how many of you will be going to the polls to cast a vote for
president this November? And which candidate are you voting for?
Mail me in private and
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Joshua Brady wrote:
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist.
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com
accounts already. :P
Because G-mail scans INCOMING
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
Spamming exists because spamming works. Why
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 10:16:09AM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Hi,
I know this is somewhat off topic, but I am hoping someone here has previously
dealt with this problem and has an answer.
For some reason, the
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:48:06PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Lou Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 03:13:30PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:15:20 PST, Dave
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 03:13:30PM -0500, 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
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:29:17PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
A Google search turned up http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/pacbell-rdns.html
Or do we actually want a Fortune 1000 network. Direct communications
are prohibited between most users.
Unfortunately, Microsoft products seem to have a default which is set to hide
file extensions and to make it very difficult to see 'multiple extensions' like
the '.docmany spaces.pif' in the current worm, it is somewhat easier to dress
a vampire in gerbil clothing in these systems than in others.
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:20:10PM -0700, Margie Arbon wrote:
--On Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:54 PM -0400 Susan Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks, let's move this discussion onto one of the many lists that
focuses on spam:
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/spam-l.html --
Is there a way to configure bind so that when an **unauthorized** update
comes in it enstates an address of the owner's choice?
--
-=[L]=-
I am unable to reach them via several different ISPs. It looks
to my naive eyes like routes to them have vanished. Can anyone
shed any light on this?
--
-=[L]=-
Actually, me bad. It is the nameservers they use for
their clients:
ns5.behosting.com 208.56.139.155
ns6.behosting.com 208.56.138.142
I cannot reach either from many nets on the west coast,
and the traceroutes die very early:
From usenix.org:
12-% traceroute -n 208.56.139.155
traceroute to
Thanks for the help. Apologies for keeping it going so long.
End thread.
--
-=[L]=-
Probably 3.9, probably Orinda. No damage or injury reports.
Nothing to see ... move along
--
-=[L]=-
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:46:48PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
There's quite a lot of usable stuff out there. Many Win32 users have
switched to Mozilla which seems to solve 100% of the Outlook-specific
attacks which account for... hmmm... 100%
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:52:06PM -0500, blitz wrote:
The only disadvantage I see, is a single point of failure, and a point for
concentration of attacks.
Marc
Also, it centralizes POWER! There are many different lists with different
policies and criteria. Some are based on technically
Another data point - I get connectivity through sonic.net (Santa Rosa). This vanished
between Fri Jan 24 21:30:00 PST 2003 and Fri Jan 24 21:35:00 PST 2003. At that time,
connectivity on other circuits through ALTER.NET, megapath.net and mfnx.net were still
ok.
All circuits seem to be up now
It seems to me that this issue is being highly obfuscated. SPEWS
publishes a list. It is the ISP of your MAIL RECIPIENT that CHOOSES
to use it. Take up the issue with them. It was their choice to use
it - no one forced them to. I recently pointed out to the sendmail
folks that their blacklist
A client of mine just discovered that he could no longer do ftp
transfers to my machine. His IP address had changed to one in
12.240.20 and there is no reverse DNS for that block. His
previous assignment was in a totally different block which did
have reverse DNS. Calls to ATTBI got the answer
29 matches
Mail list logo
