On 02/05/05, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 19:10, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 02/05/05, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DK or IIM makes it clear who is administering the server and this
authentication permits reputation assessment. Add an account
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 09:41, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 02/05/05, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without authenticating an identity, it must not be used in a reputation
assessment. Currently this is commonly done by using the remote IP
address authenticated through the action of
the dilemma with the average home user. If you own a bunch
of domains you're in a whole different class. Make arrangement with your
ISP to handle your mail, run your own mail server or buy hosting with
email accounts. Point is, if you own a bunch of domains you're not the
average home user that floods
On 02/04/05, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attempting to detect spam trickled through thousands of compromised
systems sent through the ISP's mail servers, SPF does nothing,
Nor is it purported to. Domain-based authentication schemes
are intended to handle an
TV Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:53:07 -0500 (EST)
TV From: Todd Vierling
TV The only way to be sure is via cryptographic signature. Barring that level
False. You imply that a crypto signature is a perfect guarantee, and
that nothing else can provide equal assurance.
TV of immediate
That, on the other hand, gets you into trouble with rather stupid Spam
filters, that only accept mails from a server, if that server is also
MX for the senders domain.
Yes, this is stupid, but that does not change the fact, that these
setups are out there.
No, they're not. Large ISPs, starting
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
DK or IIM makes it clear who is administering the server and this
authentication permits reputation assessment. Add an account
identifier, and the problem is nailed.
Ah, so you're saying that only the reputation of individual
e-mail
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 19:10, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 02/05/05, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DK or IIM makes it clear who is administering the server and this
authentication permits reputation assessment. Add an account
identifier, and the problem is nailed.
Ah, so you're saying
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JJ auth is sufficient to make email traceable to your own customers.
End users also would appreciate the ability to _know_ a message is not
forged.
The only way to be sure is via cryptographic signature. Barring that level
of immediate
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:42 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of
emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free or
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Joel Perez wrote:
I keep reading these articles and reports about this botnet and that
botnet problem and how many user's pc's are infected. The only thing
I don't see is a way to remove these bots!
http://www.sun.com/software/javadesktopsystem/features.xml
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 09:53 -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JJ auth is sufficient to make email traceable to your own customers.
End users also would appreciate the ability to _know_ a message is not
forged.
The only way to be sure is via
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:42:55 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the local
ISP's mail servers rather than trying their own
Hi!
http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the local
ISP's mail servers rather than trying their own port 25
connections.
Now? We (and AOL, and some other large networks) have
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:42:55 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:42:55AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CNET reports
http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the local
ISP's mail servers rather than trying their
On Feb 3, 2005, at 9:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One additional thing that I think wasnt mentioned in the article -
Make sure your MXs (inbound servers) are separate from your outbound
machines, and that the MX servers dont relay email for your dynamic IP
netblock. Some other trojans do stuff
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of
emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
Doing that - especially now when this article has hit the popular
press and there's going to be lots more people doing the same thing -
is going to be equivalent of hanging out a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CNET reports
http://news.com.com/Zombie+trick+expected+to+send+spam+sky-high/2100-7349_3-5560664.html?tag=cd.top
that botnets are now routing their mail traffic through the local
ISP's mail servers rather than trying their own port 25
connections.
Both on ASRG and here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
snip
Easier said than done, especially if you're a small ISP that's been doing
POP before SMTP and changing this requires that every customer's settings
be changed.
drac http://mail.cc.umanitoba.ca/drac/
supports
Hi!
Now, once 100K zombies can send *only* 1000 spam messages a day instead of
10K or even 500K, it makes a difference, but it is no solution.
I am happy to see people are starting to move this way, and I personally
believe that although this is happening (just go and hear what Carl from AOL
If a pro cannot clean it out safely, then i cannot imagine our typical
homeuser would be able to... and with some luck he installs a firewall
and antivirus next time, after reinstalling his system for the 4th or
5th time.
You may want to check out some AT (Anti-Trojan) software such as The
Hi!
If a pro cannot clean it out safely, then i cannot imagine our typical
homeuser would be able to... and with some luck he installs a firewall and
antivirus next time, after reinstalling his system for the 4th or 5th time.
You may want to check out some AT (Anti-Trojan) software such as The
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, but it also tell people i am safe, and they dont know
Yes, it is. AV
Now, once 100K zombies can send *only* 1000 spam messages a day instead
of 10K or even 500K, it makes a difference, but it is no solution.
I'd like to see rate limits set much
lower than that. Perhaps one message per day
to begin with. After the message is sent,
send the customer a reminder
This is no POC, we have seen this happen many many times. Perhaps some
Wrong, and I will tell you why in a second.
drone networks are a little 'behind' but in general, they are perfectly
able to do this. Even with some static lists for some large ISPs
mailservers they can perfectly initiate it
- Original Message -
From: Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow me to elaborate; and forget about this article, why limited ourselves?
Once big ISP's started blocking port 25/outbound for dynamic ranges, and it finally begun hitting the news, we once again caused
the spammers to under-go
the limits
David
- Original Message -
From: Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Time to check the rate limits on your mail servers
Did you actially read the article
Hello
I am a bit concerned that blocking any port at all preventing abuse of
the affected service will make the abusers go through other services
instead. Port 139/445 is already blocked by several isps due to
excessive abuse or I believe they call it 'a security measurement'. Even
port 23
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:07:10 +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn said:
The only thing I don't see is a way to remove these bots!
Not everyone knows how to even look at their machines for signs of these
bots. Heck, I know most of my guys here don't even know how these bots
work.
For a compromised
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:54:28 +0200, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, please tell me, how is not blocking un-used or un-necessary ports
a bad thing? It is a defensive measure much like you'd add barricades
before an attack.
Agreed. And depending on your service, there are different
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
One additional thing that I think wasnt mentioned in the article -
Make sure your MXs (inbound servers) are separate from your outbound
machines, and that the MX servers dont relay email for your dynamic IP
netblock. Some other trojans do
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:41 EST, Jason Frisvold said:
Agreed. And depending on your service, there are different ports
worth blocking. For residential users, I can't see a reason to not
block something like Netbios. And blocking port 25 effectively
prevents zombies from spamming.
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,
On 02/03/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any info on how this zombie is spread? ie, email worms, direct
port attacks, etc. If the former, there's hope of nipping it in the bud
with anti-virus filtering.
Yeah, that's been working really well for us so far. /sarcasm
--
J.D.
on Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
The only thing I don't see is a way to remove these bots!
Not everyone knows how to even look at their machines for signs of these
bots. Heck, I know most of my guys here don't even know how these bots
work.
For a
GE Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:14:40 +0200
GE From: Gadi Evron
GE heck, I don't see how SMTP auth would help, either. They have local
GE access to the machine.
User joe6pack is pumping out 100k messages/day. That can't possibly be
valid; let's disable his -- and only his -- SMTP access. He
GE Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:54:28 +0200
GE From: Gadi Evron
GE They now evolved, and are using user-credentials and ISP-servers. This
GE evolution means that their capabilities are severely decreased, at least
GE potentially.
This means that it's 1998 again. Direct-to-MX spam was an evolution
: I'd like to see rate limits set much lower than that. Perhaps one
: message per day to begin with. After the message is sent, send the
: customer a reminder about the limit and tell them how to get to a web
: page to increase the limit. The web page would only accept an
: incremental increase.
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:26:55 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:41 EST, Jason Frisvold said:
Agreed. And depending on your service, there are different ports
worth blocking. For residential users, I can't see a reason to not
block something like
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:26:55PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:41 EST, Jason Frisvold said:
Agreed. And depending on your service, there are different ports
worth blocking. For residential users, I can't see a reason to not
block something like Netbios.
--On Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:42 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of
emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free or
commercial.
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
Only thing that puzzles me is, why it took spammers so long to go in
this direction.
It didn't. It took the media long to notice.
Pete
- Original Message -
From: Jason Frisvold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:54:28 +0200, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, please tell me, how is not blocking un-used or un-necessary ports
a bad thing? It is a defensive measure much like you'd add barricades
before an
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
Only thing that puzzles me is, why it took spammers so long to go in
this direction.
Nils
I am still confused why people think this is new behavior. The sky is
not falling (regardles of how many stories CNET publishes claiming it
is), nor should this really be relevant to
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Jason Frisvold wrote:
prevents zombies from spamming. Unfortunately, it also blocks
legitimate users from being able to use SMTP AUTH on a remote server..
There's a *reason* why RFC2476 specifies port 587
I assume you're referring to the ability to block port
Michael Loftis wrote:
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free or
commercial.
Strange. Our mail servers have had this ability for over a year. The
hard part is getting tens of thousands of legacy ISP customers to switch
to SMTP auth without drowning the support
Once upon a time, Robert Blayzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Michael Loftis wrote:
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free or
commercial.
Strange. Our mail servers have had this ability for over a year. The
hard part is getting tens of thousands of legacy ISP
Chris Adams wrote:
What does that have to do with SMTP rate limiting?
A lot since the original question was:
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of
emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
and an answer was:
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:47 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Time to check the rate limits on your mail servers
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of emails per
day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why
Miller, Mark wrote:
How come it is always about controlling the symptoms and not the
illness?
The illness is the user. That is uncontrollable.
On 02/03/05, Miller, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How come it is always about controlling the symptoms and not the
illness? The vast majority of these
spam drones are compromised WINDOWS machines. If the operating system
and dominant email applications so easily allows the users'
Michael Loftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of emails per
day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free
or commercial.
My exim.conf calls you a liar.
--
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:21:19PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
Only thing that puzzles me is, why it took spammers so long to go in
this direction.
It didn't. It took the media long to notice.
Pete's correct. And there's another reason: spammers have long
since
- and make those that would profit from the
abuse of the system accountable by denying them services.
John
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Time to check the rate limits on your mail servers
We've been doing this on postfix for some time now.
Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:42 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of
emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why?
Because there are *NO* packages available
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
J.D. Falk
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 4:35 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Time to check the rate limits on your mail servers
On 02/03/05, Miller, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 02/03/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upgrading and/or replacing the OS for every Windows user on the
planet is an educational issue. Keeping the network viable
while you figure out how to do that is an operational issue.
..or a cost issue. Most of these
Peter Corlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
My exim.conf calls you a liar.
Since I've had a few private emails about my rude and abrupt comment
(although not complaining about it, which is encouraging :), I'd
better explain further, just in case there were people who are curious
but not
How come it is always about controlling the symptoms and not the
illness?
The illness is the user. That is uncontrollable.
A product that doesn't work as advertised has much to do with it as well.
Adi
How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
the actual user authenticating? This will make SPAM traceable and
hopefully ultimately users aware that their PC is sending junk.
Adi
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Adi Linden wrote:
How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
the actual user authenticating?
that doesn't work if you have more than one email address.
This will make SPAM traceable and
hopefully ultimately users aware that their PC is sending junk.
How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
the actual user authenticating?
that doesn't work if you have more than one email address.
Wouldn't address resolution take care of that if properly
configured? Some implementations allow you to specify what
email
JJ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:41:34 -0800 (PST)
JJ From: Joel Jaeggli
JJ How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
JJ the actual user authenticating?
JJ
JJ that doesn't work if you have more than one email address.
The words overreaching and fallacious come to
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 14:55 -0800, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 02/03/05, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..or a cost issue. Most of these users are people who have
decided not to spend the $40 to defend their machine at home.
So you educate them as to why it would be a good idea to
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:30:58 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just implemented a patch to tcpserver which allows me to limit the
number of simultaneous SMTP connections from any one IP, but have not yet
looked into daily/hourly limits. I know Comcast has started
How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
the actual user authenticating? This will make SPAM traceable and
hopefully ultimately users aware that their PC is sending junk.
Ouch .. Then spammers may start using a From: matching the SMTP auth
user, and
How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
the actual user authenticating?
that doesn't work if you have more than one email address.
You should know all your users email addresses. It shouldn't be too
difficult to match the 'mail from' address with the user
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adi Linden) [Fri 04 Feb 2005, 03:17 CET]:
You should know all your users email addresses.
You have got to be kidding.
-- Niels.
--
The idle mind is the devil's playground
JF Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:37:29 -0500
JF From: Jason Frisvold
JF Ouch .. Then spammers may start using a From: matching the SMTP auth
JF user, and effectively joe-jobbing the user.. Ick..
Exactly. The user then loses mail sending ability, but other services
remain functional.
Eddy
--
Okay i Jeff Bond, I confess. I stole your mail,
stalking you day and night,
stole a car and left it in your driveway, making
harassing phone calls to
you (while my wife screamed at me to stop),and yes, Im
cyberstalked you.
Oh, and that old grey and red Honda? Yeah, that's mine
too
This is a topic I get very soap-boxish about. I have too many problems
with providers who don't understand the college student market. I can
think of one university who requires students to login through a web
portal before giving them a routable address. This is such a waste of
time
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Lynn Bashaw wrote:
Does anyone on the list know of any ISPs that bill based on average
utilization, rather than some variation of 95th percentile?
Average is just a function of total and time, and time progresses linearly
with time, so average x some $ figure
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Koepp, Karsten wrote:
Volume usually totals in+out, whereas average does max(in,out)
divided by time intervals.
Well, not to be nit-picky, but that wouldn't strictly be averaging, then.
To get back to the question at hand, another scheme that I'm seeing more
Does anyone on the list know of any ISPs that bill based on average
utilization, rather than some variation of 95th percentile?
Sure. As long as your math is correct it does not matter how do you
calculate your bill.
Alex
My thoughts are Cogents primary customers are sites that are looking for
very cheap bandwidth, which most likely is adult content. Therefore they
would look more like a content provider than a transit provider.
Cogent is making in roads at a lot of Universities who want, as we all
know,
At 12:32 AM 8/21/2002 -0400, David Lesher wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that N. Richard Solis said:
If you haven't worked in an environment where you had to turn in your
cellphone and pager at the front desk, show a badge to a camera around
every
corner, and get
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:32:24 -0400 (EDT) David Lesher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that N. Richard Solis said:
If you haven't worked in an environment where you had to turn in your
cellphone and pager at the front desk, show a badge to a camera around
Who did you think held the cellphone and the pager? :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Lesher
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:32 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: your mail
Unnamed Administration sources reported that N
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Shared facilities (was Re: your mail)
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, David Lesher wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that N. Richard Solis said
Sounds like a nuclear power plant I used to work at. Except the nuke
plants don't trust the marines to do the job. They hire and train their
own security teams.
I had to go through more screening to work there than anything I've gone
through re security clearances and the government. The scary
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ali Jackson wrote:
Does any one else out there think smart hands at Equinix is a rip off? I
can send a package over night to the IBX for less than what it costs to
move it from the mailroom to my cage. Just curious
Uh, yes. Equinix is a rip off in general. I got
Yes.
Equinix security, while it looks very tough, is very easy to social
engineer.
Too much fluff, need more stuff.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ali Jackson wrote:
Does any one else out there think smart hands at Equinix is a rip off? I
can send
: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: your mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Stratton) writes:
Uh, yes. Equinix is a rip off in general. I got kicked out of Chicago
using the side door. I was sick of the stupid man trap crap and noticed
they had a door that was propped
There is no perfect location. Any common location has a certain
level of insecurity. Im sure u could sneak in a squeeze bottle and
spray equipment also. The point is, it is a relatively secure
location, short of building your own facility or blding and manning
it.
Even many military
Equinix has show considerable interest in catering to the carrier market,
and has always been very customer service oriented. Their security is
generally good, and their security managers take the sort of stuff you are
talking about very seriously. I have no doubt that they would take some
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 03:08:22PM -0400, N. Richard Solis wrote:
I think that getting caught is a good indication that they take the security
of the facility seriously.
Which is clearly exhibited by them leaving a side door propped
open, or not checking or securing this door
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:07:49PM -0400, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ali Jackson wrote:
Does any one else out there think smart hands at Equinix is a rip off? I
can send a package over night to the IBX for less than what it costs to
move it from the mailroom to my
Does any one else out there think smart hands at Equinix is a rip off? I
can send a package over night to the IBX for less than what it costs to
move it from the mailroom to my cage. Just curious
Uh, yes. Equinix is a rip off in general. I got kicked out of Chicago
using the side
. Richard Solis
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: your mail
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 03:08:22PM -0400, N. Richard Solis wrote:
I think that getting caught is a good indication that they take the
security
of the facility seriously.
Which is clearly exhibited by them leaving a side door
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, N. Richard Solis wrote:
Leaving or forcing doors to be propped open generally triggers an alarm that
prompts a visit from someone in security. It is entirely possible that
someone who worked at the facility informed the security staff of what they
were doing because
Speakig of paix's and locations, I know the mfn filings have held up
progress but I wondered and maybe others on this list wonder what the
status of the paix nyiix interconnection might be?
On 20 Aug 2002, Paul
Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Stratton) writes:
Uh, yes. Equinix
Speakig of paix's and locations, I know the mfn filings have held up
progress but I wondered and maybe others on this list wonder what the
status of the paix nyiix interconnection might be?
until mfn finishes selling paix, there will likely be no progress on this.
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Nathan Stratton
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:07 PM
To: N. Richard Solis
Cc: Majdi S. Abbas; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: your mail
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, N. Richard Solis wrote:
Leaving or forcing doors to be propped
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, N. Richard Solis wrote:
Then the appropriate person to talk to is the account manager. Catching a
problem yourself doesn't do anyone any good if the management of the
facility (or the company) isn't involved.
That presumes there is a single account manager.
With
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
I'm curious -- did they kick you out for the day, or terminate your contract
and move you out?
Basically they said they would ban me personally if I gave there security
people a hard time about their security. I don't think they ever would
terminate a
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
I'm curious -- did they kick you out for the day, or terminate
your contract
and move you out?
Basically they said they would ban me personally if I gave there security
people a hard time about their security. I don't think they ever would
I am not an ex-employee of Equinix, so here's my 2 cents:
When we built the IBXs, having spent a couple of years listening to
you folks tell me what you want at the PAIX and elsewhere, I basically
learned it was impossible to satisfy everyone. If you please one network
engineer, you're going
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Jay Adelson wrote:
2) Customers are given one point of contact they can call for anything.
I'm your customer and I'm telling you that I haven't been and when I've
specifically asked for a single point of contact I've been told that I
need to contact a variety of people
Patrick,
Yes, really! That's what the ERC is for. I guess the confusion is outside
your email thread, which indicates as such... But yes, the single point is
supposed to be the ERC.
Feel free to contact me with specifics...
-Jay
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:29:43PM -0700, Patrick wrote:
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
