Mark Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We don't allow most of our residential customer base to speak SMTP
TCP/25 to anywhere at all (and we have millions of them). Wish more
ISPs would do the same.
Probably fair enough, if you as an ISP can
* chloe K.:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
Are the source and target on the same subnet? Have you checked the
source MAC address of the response?
--
Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BFK edv-consulting GmbH
Check your ARP tables, local and on intervening switches/routers. Make sure
there are no duplicate entries for that IP. If you note the response time, the
second packet is always higher which might be indicative. I would also check
for a botched MITM a la CA.
Even if there is no obvious
-Original Message-
From: chloe K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: duplicate packet
Hi all
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
Thank you
64 bytes from
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
Not enough information has been given.
Just
* chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
What's your netmask? Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast address?
sebastian
Sebastian Abt wrote:
* chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
What's your netmask? Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast
On 9/10/08, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi There,
Are there any Yahoo! e-mail admins on the list? We're having some issues at
times delivering e-mail to yahoo.co.uk and sometimes some of the other yahoo
networks.
Probably not--but folks can probably get the message
I am completely convinced that abuse@ in most big providers is a
black hole with an autoresponder hung off it, and nothing ever
gets done with complaints. NO HUMAN ever sees them, and even if
they did, most of the humans at these outfits wouldn't recognize
a Received: header if it bit them in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
This is to confirm that the IANA has allocated one 2-byte ASN block
to the RIPE NCC:
48128-49151 Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net
2008-09-09
A note of the allocation has been made at:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut
this down has found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail
Try reach them at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cheers,
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/
- Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox
about an
Randy Bush wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this
down has found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few of their records
Because they don't have oil.
On 9/10/08, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this
down has found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:53PM -0400, Nicholas Suan wrote:
On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
You're forgetting that 587 *is authenticated, always*.
I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference since the usual spam
vector is malware that has
On 9/10/08, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox about
an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this down has
found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few
16 matches
Mail list logo
