On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:38:33 CDT, Chris Boyd said:
> - I'd like to see an actual response beyond an autoreply saying that you
> can't tell me who the customer is or what actions were taken.
Well, let's see. If you're reporting abuse coming from my AS, it's almost
certainly one of 2 things:
1)
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:14:52 EDT, Joe Abley said:
> The downside to such a plan from the customer's perspective is that
> I'm pretty sure most of us would have been really bad helpdesk people.
> There's a lot of skill in dealing with end-users that is rarely
> reflected in the org chart or p
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:47:04 PDT, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
> The issue is whether "exe" in the root will break something. Rather than
> just ask for a few well-known suffixes, and forgetting some, and leaving
> out "ps" as it is already assigned to a ccTLD, I've picked on the
> MIME-TYPE set
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:50:25 EDT, Barry Shein said:
> > So this is (yet another) fishing expidition -- as MIME types are a handy
> > list, if any of those strings were present in a header, as in
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], would any well-known thingee choke?
As a practical matter, 'bar.mime-type'
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:06:21 EDT, Brian Raaen said:
> have gotten from Sprint up to this point is that they find no problems. Due
> to the consistency of 5Mbps I am suspecting rate limiting, but wanted to know
> if I was overlooking something else.
TCP window size tuning? I'd look there first...
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:21:26 +0530, Glen Kent said:
>
> says the solemn headline of Telegraph.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/06/ninternet106.xml
So yoy get higher bandwidth (physical pipe allowing) by downloading from a
"grid" of systems.
Sounds suspiciously l
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:36:09 +0200, Thomas Kernen said:
> And those of us that live next to the LHC wonder if we will be sucked
> into a {vortex|wormhole}.
You mean like this?
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080406&mode=classic
pgplzlVbya2JN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:48:47 MDT, Michael Loftis said:
> Yeah except in a lot of areas there is no MAN, and the ILECs want to bend
> you over for any data access. I've no idea how well the MAN idea is coming
> along in various areas, but you still have to pay for access to it somehow,
> and th
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:25:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> Why would you assume this? That wouldn't be my first assumption after
> reading the thread. I would assume folks would Do The Right Thing.
There is no Right Thing that is *so* obviously right that some significant
fraction of the community w
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:15:06 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> mailing list. Isn't this akin to posting to a profesional mathematics forum
> asking for help with your Algebra?
In 1943 he (Einstein) answered a little girl who had difficulties in school
with mathematics.
"Do not worry about your diff
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:39 EDT, Martin Hannigan said:
>
>
> I dont think that there's any issue at all to be honest. NANOG isn't
> just for the clued.
>
>
And more to the point - if somebody manages to go through all the hoops needed
to ask a basic question on the NANOG list, it demonstrate
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said:
> Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
>
> I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
> stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
> Asia specifical
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:55:05 CST, Justin Shore said:
> I'm assuming everyone uses uRPF at all their edges already so that
> eliminates the need for specific ACEs with ingress/egress network
> verification checks.
You're new here, aren't you? :)
pgpck6mspgZyp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:29:01 EST, Randy Epstein said:
> > Our own or our singlehomed customers' address space -- we would reject
^^^
> > such an advertisement. The same inbound consistency check applies to
> > peers and upstreams/transits.
> What do you do when one of y
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:38:36 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> self-inflicted denial of service. Do you think the US Embassy in
> Moscow really trusts the Moscow telephone company?
Not after we let them *build* the embassy building, we didn't
pgpB9OmQKXniC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:33:20 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> > And oddly enough, license plates on cars act *exactly the same way* - but
> > nobody seems at all surprised when police can work backwards from a plate
> > and come up with a suspect (who, admittedly, may not have been
> > involved if
> > t
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:39:53 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> What we can do with IP addresses is conclude that the user of the
> machine with an address is likely to be one of its usual users. We
> can't say that with 100% certainty, because there are any number of
> ways people can get "unusual" a
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:35:41 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> I'm sorry, but, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how an IP can
> be considered personally identifying.
I dunno. I think I have a pretty good guess of who 192.159.10.227 is, or
at least who it was as of 14:35 -0800 today.
pgpjmGn60
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
> You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls and
> ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be available,
> etc. (For some reason, I'm assuming that DNSsec isn't being used...)
Been there, done t
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said:
> make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall rules/ACL's,
> recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP equipment with stacks too
> stupid to do DNS, etc.
I'll admit that fixing up /etc/resolv.conf and whatever the Windo
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:36:50 EST, Matt Landers said:
>
> Semi-related article:
>
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
Odd, I saw *another* article that said that while the FCC is moving to
investigate unfair behavior by Comcast, Congress is moving to invest
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:04:37 EST, Deepak Jain said:
> Encouraging "encryption" of more protocols is an interesting way to
> discourage this kind of shaping.
Dave Dittrich, on another list yesterday:
> They're not the only ones getting ready. There are at least 5 anonymous
> P2P file sharing net
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:17:37 EST, William Herrin said:
> In my ever so humble opinion, IPv6 will not reach significant
> penetration at the customer level until NAT has been thoroughly
> implemented. Corporate information security officers will insist.
> Here's the thing: a stateful non-NAT firewa
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
> On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
> > The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP
> > table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also
> > high (around 30%).
>
> This is an intere
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:49:13 CST, Chengchen Hu said:
> Suppose the following example. ISP A has a router A1 in IXP1 and a router A2
> in
> IXP2; and ISP B has a routers B1 in IXP1 and a router B2 in IXP2. It is
> possible that we have DIRECT link A1A2 and B1B2 to connnect two IXPs, but I
> don't
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:04:23 +0100, Florian Weimer said:
> There's also the issue that you can't reliably tell data (which,
> presumably, does not need to be signed) from code.
And "active content" is what happens when you *intentionally* blur the data/
code distinction.
Unfortunately, it's (a) w
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:03:55 EST, Jared Mauch said:
> 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.
> (This was a WAG, based
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:38:40 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> Some people have compared unwanted Internet traffic to water pollution,
> and proposed that ISPs should be required to be like water utilities and
> be responsible for keeping the Internet water crystal clear and pure.
What's the networking e
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:50 EST, "Raymond L. Corbin" said:
> Heh better then my all time favorite was the "mailbox is full" reply
> from an abuse@ address for an ISP based in Nigeria who had a few servers
> trying to open umpteen fraud accounts :D
I've seen my share of 800-pound gorillas (we're t
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers
> can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently does not care
> to hear about it.
Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more abo
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:33:51 EST, Drew Weaver said:
> Our abuse department has been receiving e-mails daily with our feedback loop
> with AOL about e-mails which were 'supposedly' sent about a year ago.
It's amazing how often I see time-warp mail caused by somebody recovering
a busticated system,
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 hit
'reply' would have your desired reply destination already filled in.
Requesting that people re
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:33:35 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger
> suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has
> anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel unscathed
> through the public Interne
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:44:53 BST, Rod Beck said:
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each
> month or the bytes generated by different applications.
Note that in many/most cases, the person signing the agreement and paying
the bill (the parental units) are not the ones
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:35:21 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
> This doesn't explain why many universities, most with active, symmetric
> ethernet switches in residential dorms, have been deploying packet shaping
> technology for even longer than the cable companies. If the answer was
> as simple as upgra
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:39:48 PDT, Hex Star said:
> I can see "advanced operating systems" consuming much more bandwidth
> in the near future then is currently the case, especially with the web
> 2.0 hype.
You obviously have a different concept of "near future" than the rest of us,
and you've appa
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:58 MDT, Alain Durand said:
> Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a
> table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-)
And to think that we all laughed at Eugene Terrell
pgp1oANR5GLQa.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
> organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make
> it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,
> maybe even year
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:01:40 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Considering the number of inconsistently originated prefixes has been
> non-trivial for at least a decade, I have trouble believing this is a
> huge threat to the internet. Or even those 1500 NOC monkeys. (And
> wouldn't it be
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:32:50 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> > I never said it was. My experience, both in my previous life as
> > the operator of a regional ISP and since then in other capacities
> > is that having disjoint origins for
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:56:48 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> controller can force enable/disable. I don't see how RIAA can lobby for
> switching off privacy enhancement - disabling certain component of the
> operating system?.
Consider the fact that they lobbied *and got* 17 USC 512 takedowns, and
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:42:05 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> Except if you are using privacy enhanced ipv6 addresses a la RFC 3041
Which is more likely:
1) The RIAA successfully lobbies for a network that basically prohibits rfc3041.
2) The consumers successfully lobby for a network that permits/re
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:35:33 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> Business folks once ruled the internet but those days are over. The
> consumer is king.
Given yesterday's RIAA victory in their lawsuit in Minnesota, I expect the
RIAA will start lobbying for more ways to easily identify the indiv
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:16 EDT, John Curran said:
> Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going
> to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make
> deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough
> transition mechanism to be Proposed Sta
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:35:12 +1200, Nathan Ward said:
> Probably doesn't work so well if you have 6k people behind the same
> NAT, and they all try and use proto-41, though.
If you have 6,000 people behind a single NAT, proto-41 is probably the
least of your concerns, and Randy Bush may or may
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:38:30 EDT, Deepak Jain said:
> Anytime you talk about "rural" I'm impressed with 7 hours, however --
> isn't SONET supposed to make this better?
I'm not in Texas, but I am rural - there's plenty of places around here
where it's just not economically feasible to run 2 diver
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:29:38 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> they can't do it in hardware or with decent speed in software) but
> there are no cheap(er) Juniper boxes that are suitable for deployment
> as a 5 - 200 Mbps tunnel box, in my opinion.
I presume your thinking is that by the time
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:27:32 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
>
> It is not dependent on time. You'd like a protocol to be self sufficient if
> at all possible.
>
> Moving the vulnerability of one protocol to another is not highly desirable
> in general.
The interesting failure mode is, of course, what hap
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:28:45 PDT, Kevin Oberman said:
> I had a router that lost it's NTP servers and was off by about 20
> minutes. The only obvious problem was the timestamps in syslog. (That's
> what alarmed to cause us to notice and fix it.)
Trying to correlate logfiles with more than a severa
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:15:38 EDT, John Curran said:
>In addition, if the record is added for the node, instead of
>service as recommended, all the services of the node should be IPv6-
>enabled prior to adding the resource record. "
>
> Not a problem for names which are single se
http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling had a great collection of
"What not to do" photos, but it has apparently evaporated in the mists of
time. Anybody know if it's at a new location, or is the Wayback Machine
my only hope?
(ISTR it also had an adjacent "cabling done right" gallery - doe
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said:
>
> Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
> IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make
> sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked
> out of it rather easily.
We decided to map
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:27:31 -1000, Randy Bush said:
> how? if i read you aright, you are saying that there will likely be a
> few strange folk at the 'edges' of the internet who will have problems
> and whine.
What percentage of those strange folk are the strange folk who have
problems and whine
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:32:43 CDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> of all this President Bush insists the Iraq war is necessary. What bull...I'm
> surprised a member of the press hasn't killed Bush..
I'm not at all surprised - the press has, as a whole, given the entire
Executive branch and most of Congr
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:59:54 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
> Since major events in the real-world also result in a lot of "new"
> traffic, how do you signal new sessions before they reach the affected
> region of the network? Can you use BGP to signal the far-reaches of
> the Internet that I'm having p
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:15:01 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> telecom hotel/data centre. In the exchange point, you could
> theoretically have special "INSURANCE" peering agreements where you
> don't exchange traffic until there is an emergency, and then you can
> quickly turn it on, perhaps using a
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:52:37 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> I'm really not sure, but I can imagine a slew of issues where 'marketting'
> doesn't plan properly and corp-ID/corp-branding end up trying to register
> and make-live a domain at the 11th hour...
"Failure to plan ahead on your part doe
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:45:39 CDT, Carl Karsten said:
> thanks. I kinda figured it was something like that, but it was just a bit
> too
> unfamiliar, and around here (US) they just have 2 sides of the pool, know as
> "the shallow end" and "the deep end".
I think Peter was referring to the "Wad
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:58:40 -, Paul Vixie said:
> > How does the (eventual) deployment of DNSSEC change these numbers?
>
> DNSSEC cannot be signalled except in EDNS.
Right. Elsewhere in this thread, somebody discussed ugly patches to keep
the packet size under 512. I dread to think how man
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:05:26 -, Paul Vixie said:
> i think you're advising folks to monitor their authority servers to find out
> how many truncated responses are going out and how many TCP sessions result
> from these truncations and how many of these TCP sessions are killed by the
> RFC1035
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:11:36 EDT, Matthew Crocker said:
> But you could, it isn't hard to dump a BGP view into a box from a
> border router and use that map to determine the proper DNS records to
> return.
It's harder than it looks, given the number of people who pop up on this list
and ask
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:13:03 EDT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
> > 1) ICMP is handled at the same rate as TCP/UDP packets in all the
> > routers involved (so there's no danger of declaring a path "slow"
> > when it really isn't, just becase a router slow-pathed ICMP).
>
> This is aimed at hosts, no
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:53:15 EDT, Drew Weaver said:
> Is it a fairly normal practice for large companies such as Yahoo! And
> Mozilla to send icmp/ping packets to DNS servers? If so, why?
Sounds like one of the global-scale load balancers - when you do a (presumably)
recursive DNS lookup of one of
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:51:10 MDT, "Jason J. W. Williams" said:
> It seems to me a lot of virus scanners picked up this behavior in the
> days of the "I Love You" and Melissa viruses, when virii tended to
> infect documents rather than be self-propagating worms. We haven't lived
> in a world where i
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:33:16 PDT, Jim Shankland said:
> Hmm; I've never actually heard of anybody doing PMTUD on non-TCP
> traffic, though it's possible. Does anybody actually do it?
AIX 5.2 and earlier supported it for UDP (we're getting out of the AIX
business, so I can't speak to what 5.3 doe
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:43:17 PDT, Roy said:
> > Funny story about that and the EPO we have here...
> > ...
> Story #1
> Story #2
Story #3
So about 4 -5 years ago, we were in the middle of a major renovation of our
server room. Moving machines all over the place, trying to clear about
6K contig
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:00:40 CDT, Joe Greco said:
> Hardly unexpected. The continuing evolution is likely to be pretty
> scary. Disposables are nice, but the trouble and slowness in seeding
> makes them less valuable. I'm expecting that we'll see
> compartmentalized bots, where each bot has
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:44:07 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
> Its more resonable to expect users to know how to remove bots and fix
> their compromised computers?
Consider it an opportunity for somebody to get a new revenue stream. It
can be your provider, or a competitor, or a 3rd party support compa
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:42:22 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
>b. terminate tens of thousands of user accounts (of users who are mostly
> "innocent" except their computer was compromised)
Given how often compromised computers have *multiple* installs of badware on
them, just cleaning off *one* bot th
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:39:35 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
> messages. The irc.foonet.com server clearly sends several cleaning
> commands used by several well-known, and very old, Bots.
Old and well-known bots. Remember that for a moment, and think "6 month old
antivirus signatures" for a bit
>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:39:30 MDT, Daniel said:
> 1) A single carrier for global connectivity to all sites (mpls etc)
>
> 2) A single carrier for global regional connectivity, and in
> country/regional carriers for all local offices that funnel back to regional
> aggregation points.
Is multihomin
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:07:00 PDT, Philip Lavine said:
> What is strange is there is nothing prior to the drop off that would be an
> impetus for congestion (no high BW utilization or packet loss).
Just because there wasn't any congestion reason that *you* could see where you
hat your instrumentati
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:56:32 PDT, "Security Admin (NetSec)" said:
> Am unsure whether or not this is a mis-statement, but based on NANOG posts,
> Level(3) [AS3356] seems to show up mor=e often with issues than say Sprint
> [AS1239].
How many places does AS3356 connect with other AS's, and how many
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
> At a very low, hardware centric level, IPv6 would be a lot easier to
> implement if
>
> 1) The addresses were 64 bits instead of 128 bits.
> 2) The extension headers architecture was completely revamped to be more
> hardware friendly.
Wow, a b
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:30 EDT, Aaron Daubman said:
> I wonder what it would take to convince a major online retailer
> (Amazon?), an auction site (eBay?) or even transaction handlers
> (google checkout, paypal?) to put up v6 portals that offered
> across-the-board (or even select) discounts to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:43:46 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:27 -0400, Roderick S. Beck wrote:
> > So none of the customers on that well known system have any ring
> > protection at this point nor will they during the next two weeks.
> Isn't that the way a ring works? Sounds l
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:18:06 BST, Leigh Porter said:
> Just out of interest, why are you looking at routing tables to find an
> available subnet?
If your predecessor wasn't quite as careful documenting allocations, it can
be useful to see if your paperwork says a /28 is dark, but you're in fact
r
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:42:04 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> No I've never heard of that except, possibly, from non-clued phone monkeys.
> It's easy to get past them to more clued folks, though...
Maybe it's easy for you. It's usually a bit harder for a Joe Sixpack who
has a Mac or Linux box, but does
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 n
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:44:40 PDT, Roger Marquis said:
>
> >> Sure, very easily, by using NAT between the subnets.
> >
> > Have at it. Nothing like trying to reach 10.10.10.10 nad having
> > to put in a dns entry pointing to 172.29.10.10
>
> End-users prefer hostnames to IPs. DNS hostnames are va
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:20:38 PDT, Jim Shankland said:
> I can't pass over Valdis's statement that a "good properly configured
> stateful firewall should be doing [this] already" without noting
> that on today's Internet, the gap between "should" and "is" is
> often large.
Let's not forget all the
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:40:42 BST, Jeroen Massar said:
> When you have a large company, the company is also split over several
> administrative sites, in some cases you might have a single
> administrative group covering several sites though, this allows you to
> provide them with a single /48 as t
On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:31:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> cameroon outsourced their dns infrastructure management to someone, that
> contract includes a "we can answer X for all queries that would return
> NXDOMAIN'" ... that's not 'asleep at the wheel'
As I said, "asleep at the wheel or wor
On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:08:44 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > the bits of governments that deal with online crime, spam, etc.,
> > I can report that pretty much all of the countries that matter
> > realize there's a problem, and a lot of them have passed o
On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:32:41 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Anyone remember the Internet Scout? Even back then labors of love like
> John December's list were more useful than the Internic services.
That worked well for 14,000 .coms. It doesn't work for 140,000,000 .coms.
> Does everybody on thi
On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:49:49 CDT, Neal R said:
> Set up a separate SSID exclusively for HAM use. Use IPsec AH -
> cryptographically signed traffic keeps the unlicensed out without
> breaking the no payload encryption requirements. City gets help with the
> civil defense radio of the 21st century,
On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:54:36 PDT, Roger Marquis said:
> Are there sites that accept mail from domains without a valid MX/A
> record?
Depends what you call "valid". A lot of sites get *real* confused when they
find out that the MX for foo.com is where foo.com's *inbound* mail servers
live, and th
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:38:56 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> if you can get concensus to remove .com, i'm sure the roots would
> be willing to help out.
Whose bright idea *was* it to design a tree-hierarchical structure, and then
dump essentially all 140 million entries under the same
On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:19:30 PDT, Roger Marquis said:
> Nobody's saying that the root servers are responsible, only that they
> are the point at which these domains would have to be squelched. In
> theory registrars could do this, but some would have a financial
> incentive not to.
Some have a fin
On Fri, 11 May 2007 20:17:02 +0800, Joe Shen said:
> Someone says , ISP should force those session
> closed at 00:00 on first day of each month, because
> they must ensure dial-up session of last month sould
> not be accouted in next month. Is this true ?
Or they could apply a little more kl
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:02:38 PDT, Greg Schwimer said:
>
>
> --
A message this specific is guaranteed to result in:
A) zero responses from a RoadRunner staffer that can help you.
B) Responses from groups inside RoadRunner that you didn't want to hear from.
If you're trying to fix a BGP wedgie,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:34:25 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Did that. The first three are from J. Oquendo, Valdis Kletnieks and
Hey - I stayed out of the signed-BGP and signed-DNS lunacy. The only thing *I*
commented on was the reported leakage of 10 to 20 terabytes of data. And I
think we
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:31 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
> More recently, Major General William Lord told Government Computer News
> in August 2006 that China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from
> DoDÂ’s main network, NIPRNet.
Hello, Chinanet? Some guys over in 99/8 want to know how to get
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:56:06 EDT, Kradorex Xeron said:
> In my personal opinion, ISPs, vendors, and such should legally be held
> responsible for their product's security and unconditionally be made to
> repair any security holes. -- if a vendor or ISP maintains good security
> practices, there
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:33:26 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > How would you feel if you used a product a company KNOWS lacks
> > fundamental security controls and does little to fix it. How would you
> > feel if AFTER the fact someone leveraged a method to affect you. How
> > would you feel AFTER
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:51:20 BST, Stephen Wilcox said:
> what other examples are there as you suggest a trend in hushing security
> vulns?
Skylarov ended up in jail for a while for daring to point out that a certain
foolish vendor had used ROT-13 as their encryption scheme.
Raven Adler had her
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:22:49 +0300, Saku Ytti said:
>
> On (2007-04-12 20:00 -0700), Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> > From a practical side, the cost of developing, qualifying, and selling
> > new chipsets to handle jumbo packets would jack up the cost of inside
> > equipment. What is the paybac
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:07:19 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
> these so called rules? Many network operators are required to
> do a lot of things, one of these things should be the
> mitigation of malicious traffic from LEAVING their network.
And I want a pony.
We don't even do a (near) universal job of
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:11:28 EDT, "Azinger, Marla" said:
> In my company some functions related to sending a SWIP are automated,
> but my company has people on staff who know that it is happening and
> what it means.
Just because *your* site has enough clue to get it right doesn't mean that
the *a
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:40:50 PDT, Thomas Leavitt said:
> ... and why aren't bounce messages standardized in content and formatting?!?
Jiminy creepers, why can't people run software that implements standards
from the last frikking *millenium*??!?
1891 SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status No
1 - 100 of 927 matches
Mail list logo
