This is resolved, though no one knows exactly why. If someone at Global
Crossing has relevant logs of route flaps or somesuch, that might be
interesting, but I can live with the mystery.
Comcast advertises a specific route for the problem space, 71.63.128.0/17.
Don't ask me why. Early
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Rich Graves wrote:
Wild card: It might be relevant that Carleton was previously a UUNET
customer, and that 137.22.69.254 was an IP address known to UUNET as a
demarc point to be monitored. Maybe someone at UUNET failed to clear
some filters some years ago, when we
) always seem to go through ATT.
137.22.69.254 137.22.69.253
71.63.168.1good (level3) BAD (level3)
71.63.244.1good (level3) BAD (level3)
74.19.4.1good (ATT)good (ATT)
Wild card: It might be relevant that Carleton was previously a UUNET
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 03:39:57AM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Nov 4, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Herb Leong wrote:
Hi,
Anyone being impacted by UUNET?
I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's said this in the last (pick a
months long period of time, I'll guess 6): Could you
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
I'm sure it just needs to be rebooted.
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
I'm sure it just
David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
I'm sure it just
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:16:07 -0800, Stephen Satchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is
Anyway, I don't think that would have helped if you're talking about the
same incident I'm thinking of. There were application-level
retransmissions of (corrupted) packets, complete with building new bad
packets from bad data structures, all over the net
The problem is documented in RFC 789
As for the LSA issue- rebooting would have fixed the problem, assuming it was
done by all nodes at the same time. All of the Link State tables would have
been rebuilt from scratch by the IMPs and the corrupt announcements would
have been gone.
Turns out this is actually mentioned on page 14
Perhaps he should see a dentist?
I just had my impacted Cogent taken care of last week with a Sprint...
:)
-
This mail was scanned by BitDefender
For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com
Hi,
Anyone being impacted by UUNET?
/herb
Herb Leong wrote:
Hi,
Anyone being impacted by UUNET?
Nothing unusual here, we are AS4927 connecting to AS701 in Los Angeles.
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
WestNet: Connecting you
| The Information Technology News Center
- http://www.digitalrage.org/?page_id=46 for pgp public key
On Nov 4, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Herb Leong wrote:
Hi,
Anyone being impacted by UUNET?
/herb
On Nov 4, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Herb Leong wrote:
Hi,
Anyone being impacted by UUNET?
I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's said this in the last (pick a
months long period of time, I'll guess 6): Could you be any less
descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
Also, did you
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
On 11/4/06, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Because we didn't deploy IPv6 quickly enough? ;P
Matt
I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's said this in the last (pick a
months long period of time, I'll guess 6): Could you be any less
descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
Ya know ... this whole descriptiveness thing has to be my biggest
pet peeve. I have a couple of things
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
No.
On Nov 4, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
Mike
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
Please. That's how you *know* it's broken.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:55:46 -0800
Michael Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?
the internet is broken. anyone know why?
Did you ping it?
is that what broke it?
Please.
Even if you decide you don't need to use a formal RFP process to make
your purchasing decision from the dozens of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3
ISPs that can handle your locations, you might want to do a draft of
an RFP to identify what requirements are important to you and what
requirements are
On 3/27/06, andrew matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here is the deal, I've delt with both uunet and abovenet (mfn now)
in the past. And a long time ago i switched from abovenet to uunet
when i was with a different company.
Now i'm with a company that has level 3 and Abovenet. Currently
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Peter Cohen wrote:
On 3/27/06, andrew matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here is the deal, I've delt with both uunet and abovenet (mfn now)
in the past. And a long time ago i switched from abovenet to uunet
when i was with a different company.
Now i'm
On 3/28/06, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Peter Cohen wrote:
On 3/27/06, andrew matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here is the deal, I've delt with both uunet and abovenet (mfn now)
in the past. And a long time ago i switched from abovenet
On 3/28/06 8:58 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would someone believe what the networks tell them over what other
_users'_ experiences are? You say it is a good basis for comparison,
but I have trouble believing that - unless you mean: A good basis to
see which
I realize this is most likely off topic and is likely to get me
flamed but I am in desperate need of the contact information for someone
in sales or management at MCI/UUNET. We have been paying a reseller for
a UUNET circuit for about 6 months and I guess he hasn't been paying
MCI/UUNET
pong I'll try to find you a sales-ish-person.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Drew Weaver wrote:
I realize this is most likely off topic and is likely to get me
flamed but I am in desperate need of the contact information for someone
in sales or management at MCI/UUNET. We have been paying
Not sure I understand how on earth something like this happens... power
is
not that confusing to make sure it does not stop working.
Is that so?
Have you read the report on the Northeast blackout of 2003?
https://reports.energy.gov/
--Michael Dillon
I certainly understand why utility power goes out and that is the reason
why MCI loosing power confuses me. I am pretty sure that someone at MCI
also realizes why the blackout happens and how fragile things are.
It is irresponsible for a Tier 1 infrastructure provider to not be able to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
James D. Butt
Unless there is some sort of crazy story related to why a service provider
could not keep the lights on, this should have not been an issue with
proper operations and engineering.
The
Yes that is an exception... not what happened in this case
You can come up with a lot of valid exceptions...
There are many reasons why a Tier 1 provider does not stick all its eggs
in multi-tenant buildings... smart things can be done with site selection.
I am not saying ever customer
Unless there is some sort of crazy story related to why a service
provider
could not keep the lights on, this should have not been an issue with
proper operations and engineering.
I'll let others tell you about the rat that caused a
short circuit when Stanford attempted to switch to
backup
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of James D. Butt
Unless there is some sort of crazy story related
to why a service provider
could not keep the lights on, this should have not
been an issue with
proper operations and engineering.
6 stories from the
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:50:47 CDT, James D. Butt said:
Unless there is some sort of crazy story related to why a service provider
could not keep the lights on, this should have not been an issue with
proper operations and engineering.
So a while ago, we're in the middle of some major
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So I am standing in a datacenter fiddling with some fiber and
listening to an electrician explaining to the datacenter owner how he
has just finished auditing all of the backup power systems and that
the transfer switch will work this time
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
During the Northridge earthquake (the one during the
world series in sf.ba.ca.us) there was a BUNCH of
disruption of the infrastructure, drives were shaken
til they crashed, power wend down all over the area,
Telco lines got
Hi Chris,
It seems all 800 numbers I have is busy.
I heard that there was fire around home depot in Down Grove area,
and it did hit the power grid, so UUNET/MCI POP lost the power.
UUNET/MCI tech - Fortunately, our Network management center tech has the
number for him - said he is waiting
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we had a loss of comercial power(coned) in the downers grove terminal.
terminal is up on generator power now.
that seems to map to the internal firedrill as well, anyone else hit by
this event?
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:06:05 + (GMT)
From: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we had a loss of comercial power(coned) in the downers grove terminal.
terminal is up on generator
Of
Robert Bonomi
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:17 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:06:05 + (GMT)
From: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN
On Thu, 11 Aug
we had a loss of comercial power(coned) in the downers grove terminal.
terminal is up on generator power now.
that seems to map to the internal firedrill as well, anyone else hit by
this event?
Electric utility had a sub-station burn up. resulting in a medium-sized
geographic area without
Anyone else having
issues with UUNET connectivity in MSP? We were seeing slowness, now we see
no traffic flow at all...we make it one hop, then nothin'.
Erik
AmundsonA+, N+, CCNA,
CCNPIT and
NetworkManagerOpen Access
Technology Int'l, Inc.mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CONFIDENTIAL
traceroute or ping or end-node ip on your end... or did you call the
customer support crew and ask them?
--Chris
(formerly [EMAIL PROTECTED])
###
## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ##
## Some Security Engineering Group
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:42:58AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
traceroute or ping or end-node ip on your end... or did you call the
customer support crew and ask them?
There was apparently a very serious fire at one or more of the
Chicago area hubs MCI manages. They have a ticket
Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated a
requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by unique
AS?
Thanks,
Tom
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Vest wrote:
Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated
a requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by
unique AS?
It was between 18 and 28 August 2004. I believe it was on Friday
the 27th but my
Hello NANOG!
Is anyone having routing issues or packet loss with
MCI/UUNet today? I have an AS701 connection at my orginization, and we've
had thousands of customer calls starting at about 2:13AM CDT. We've
shutdown 701 as a peer because traceroutes seem to expose some packet loss
Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI IP space that wasn't directly in the control of
spammers
From Ben Browning, received 29/6/04, 9:56 am -0700 (GMT):
Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
but then, individuals get 1
:
: A simple these statements are untrue, please contact me off list for the
: truth is hardly unreasonable.
:
:
:
Unfortunately a restriction such as that on this list defeats the atmosphere of
openness and education for those who may be reading, but not necessarily
posting to the list.
At 9:43 am -0700 (GMT) 25/6/04, Ben Browning wrote:
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's null routing AS701?
ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several businesses who
have, and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from
Steve Linford wrote:
I seldom post here because the couple of times I have followed-up to
correct wrong statements in nanog regarding Spamhaus, such as the
above, I have each time been told by nanog's admin that I will be
removed from the nanog list if I respond to any question in nanog
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
I seldom post here because the couple of times I have followed-up to
correct wrong statements in nanog regarding Spamhaus, such as the
above, I have each time been told by nanog's admin that I will be
removed from the nanog list if I respond to
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
but then, individuals get 1 free shot at saying things that are in
some
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:32 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
It is the same way credit reporting works: you mess up, you get no credit.
Except then you can generate yet another fake credit card and go
on with your life. Do that a few thousand times a day, even -- no problem.
The
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Smith, Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:39:26 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
I am
From the AOL theft article:
The revelations come as AOL and other Internet providers have
ramped up their efforts to track down the purveyors of spam, which
has grown into a maddening scourge that costs consumers and
businesses billions of dollars a year.
Interesting. An insider at a
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Painter
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Smith, Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Well said sir!
Scott C. McGrath
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the AOL theft article:
The revelations come as AOL and other Internet providers have
ramped up their efforts to track down the purveyors of spam, which
has grown into a
Has anyone noticed that the DHS plan is probably closer to the current
status of things than the FCC one is?
AFAIK, Currently this information _isn't_ required to be publicly
reported. The FCC wants it to be.
DHS would prefer that it be semi-public at best - just like Michael
Dillion wants.
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
this discussion anyways, is access to the internet. When the
actions of a
downstream damage that product(IE more and more networks
nullroute UUNet
traffic),
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any
** Reply to message from Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
25 Jun 2004 18:14:43 +0200
At 8:44 AM -0700 2004-06-25, Jeff Shultz wrote:
At least if someone in this clearing house sells it to the
terrorists, they will have had to work for it a bit, instead of having
us hand it to
Food for thought: Could an analyst, looking at outage reports over a
period of time, build a schematic that would demonstrate that if you
took out n points, you'd kill x% of data traffic in and out of
$pickyourmetropolitanarea?
If this analyst were working for Bin Ladin
Yes an
** Reply to message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 25 Jun 2004
17:12:45 +0100
Remember, that packet switched networking
originated with the desire to build a telecom
network that could survive massive destruction
on the scale of a nuclear war, but continue to
function. If we apply that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote something like:
Some ad hoc terrorists, in a country crawling with US troops, with a
communications infrastructure nowhere as advanced as the USA just
managed to coordinate a multiple bomb attack simultaneously.
I just got back from lunch at the Wok Inn (Morrill's
Jeff Shultz wrote:
** Reply to message from Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
25 Jun 2004 18:14:43 +0200
At 8:44 AM -0700 2004-06-25, Jeff Shultz wrote:
At least if someone in this clearing house sells it to the
terrorists, they will have had to work for it a bit, instead of having
us hand
Do you really think that if we publish all the insecurities of the
Internet infrastructure that anyone is gonna stop using it, or
business, government, and private citizens are going to quit depending
on it?
That is a totally foolish statement in today's world. The incentive for
fixing the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's null routing AS701?
ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several businesses who have, and a
great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
several
businesses who have, and a
great many people who have blocked UUNet space
from sending them email,
either by using SPEWS, the SBL, or
mci.blackholes.us .
Do these people know how much legitimate email
they're missing, for every
spam message that's blocked?
I noticed that from
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:47:07 PDT, Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The problem with being totally open about infrastructure is that there
are some vulnerabilities that simply cannot or will not be fixed -
wires sometimes have to run across bridges, redundant pumping stations
are too
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Sure, customer of a customer we got emailtools.com kicked from their
original 'home' now they've moved off (probably several times since 2000)
to another customer. This
Chris why do you give me such easy ones? :)
This situation has been known for years and it is I repeat trivially easy to solve.
1-There are relatively small numbers of serious spammers and of ISPs.
2-In your contract you require all your customers to know the true identities of
their
This process happens repeatedly, spammers know they can get about a month
of time (or more, depending on upstreams and hosting providers in
question) of life, either way it's just 50 bucks
forgive my question, but why does it take a month? If you had a bad route
causing an outage for the
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Curtis Maurand wrote:
spamhaus has gotten too agressive. Its now preventing too much legitimate
email.
Spammers have gotten too agressive. If you don't filter you would not
see any legitimate email.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
spamhaus has gotten too agressive. Its now preventing too much legitimate
email.
Spammers have gotten too agressive. If you don't filter you would not
see any legitimate email.
a couple of days before my primary email server crashed, so i
configured a backup machine.
Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poof! MCI spam problem goes away in 30 days.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
I think the discussion is over.
---Rob
signups of serial abusers. This is
trivially easy to do and your firm's failure to do so and to enforce this rule on
your
contracting parties definitively proves your management's decision to profit from
spam rather than to stop spam.
I think you may be missing a major point. UUNET/MCI
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:20:30 -0400, Stephen Perciballi wrote:
I think you may be missing a major point. UUNET/MCI provides dedicated internet
services to so many downstreams that it is impossible to stop spammers from
signing up to those downstreams. Preventing spammers from signing up
Is it possible for some people to chime in on backbone scaling
issues that have a linksys cable modem router to test on?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poof! MCI spam problem goes away in 30 days.
It is the same way credit reporting works: you mess up, you get no
credit.
Come on guys, you are all smart engineers. This is not rocket science.
If anyone really cared about SPAM, then the credit reporting
companies would already be collecting information about
SPAMmers and network
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, George Roettger wrote:
This process happens repeatedly, spammers know they can get about a month
of time (or more, depending on upstreams and hosting providers in
question) of life, either way it's just 50 bucks
forgive my question, but why does it take a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:02 +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not at all. You can terminate for actions prejudicial to the safety and security
of the system. Has nothing to do with anti-trust.
I suspect that the spammer can find a lawyer who is willing to argue the idea
that
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
On 24 Jun 2004 09
Did anyone notice any network related issues on the Boston UUNET network
earlier this morning (4:00AM PST - 8:30 AM PST). What we observed was
high latency for the following network 208.254.32.0/20?
Regards,
Ken Williams
At 11:16 AM 6/24/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:02 +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not at all. You can terminate for actions prejudicial to the safety
and security
of the system. Has nothing to do with anti-trust.
I suspect that the spammer can
not even know who emailtools is, if that ISP is a
uunet/mci customer then we'll have to deal with them as well, just like
their current home. you must realize you can't just snap your fingers and
make these things go away.
Omaha Steaks has been there for 3+ weeks (since being added to the SBL
At 11:34 PM 6/23/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'd also point out someting that any provider will tell you: Spammers
never pay their bills.
Yes, but this is not a problem for a large carrier, as the people that
receive it sure do. In other words, the money you lose on the spammer is
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
like showing that the spammer was actually sending enough of a volume to
swamp their core routers
Likewise, I imagine MCI could argue that the damage is to their core
product; namely, the trust of other ISPs and their willingness to exchange
Ben Browning said:
snip
A lengthy timeline for action to be taken, from the viewpoint of the
attacked, is indistinguishable from tacit approval of the attacks. I don't
imagine MCI has a lengthy timeline when replying to sales email or billing
issues.
You ARE kidding, right?
--
Grant A.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 11:34 PM 6/23/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'd also point out someting that any provider will tell you: Spammers
never pay their bills.
Yes, but this is not a problem for a large carrier, as the people that
receive it sure do. In other
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Grant A. Kirkwood wrote:
Ben Browning said:
snip
A lengthy timeline for action to be taken, from the viewpoint of the
attacked, is indistinguishable from tacit approval of the attacks. I don't
imagine MCI has a lengthy timeline when replying to sales email or
- Original Message -
From: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
--- snipped
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But most people are happy with things the way they are. They love SPAM
because it gives them something to complain about and get emotional
about.
I unfortunately have to agree there.
There's a large portion of the internet who has nothing better to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
This is, in fact (for you nanae watchers), the reason that most of them
get canceled by us FASTER... Sadly, non-payment is often a quicker and
easier method to term a customer than 'abuse', less checks since there
is no 'percieved revenue' :(
A
more and more networks nullroute UUNet
traffic), I would assume that you have appropriate privilege to toss them
overboard in the contracts.
IANAL, though.
~Ben
---
Ben Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The River Internet Access Co.
WA Operations Manager
1-877-88-RIVER http
At 02:36 PM 6/24/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
[ SNIP ]
this discussion anyways, is access to the internet. When the
actions of a
downstream damage that product(IE more and more networks
nullroute UUNet
traffic),
[ Operations
1 - 100 of 341 matches
Mail list logo
