This hat is sufficiently old enough to predate wikileaks by several years.
And it is way too nuanced to be easily dismissed by code is law
truisms like the one below.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Joseph Prasad joseph.pra...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/2010 5:15 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I get nothing from wikileaks.org, although the DNS is active :
$ host wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org has address 64.64.12.170
Doesn't it seem vaguely suspicious that whois was just updated?
Domain ID:D130035267-LROR
Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG
The wikileaks.info press release points to Google's Safe Browsing page for
wikileaks.info
(http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=wikileaks.info), which
comes up clean.
While I tend to trust Steve and Spamhaus because of their built up
reputation, it would be helpful if some concrete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not for nothing, but Spamhaus wasn't the only organization to warn about
Heihachi:
http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/
FYI,
- - ferg
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com
frnk...@iname.com
On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:06 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
On 12/18/2010 5:15 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I get nothing from wikileaks.org, although the DNS is active :
$ host wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org has address 64.64.12.170
Doesn't it seem vaguely suspicious that whois was just updated?
On 12/9/10 7:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Vasil Kolev wrote:
I wonder why this hasn't made the rounds here. From what I see, a
change in this part (e.g. lower buffers in customer routers, or a
change (yet another) to the congestion control algorithms) would do
On 12/9/10 8:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
By the way, I was amused that a Twitter spokesman boasted that
The company is not overly concerned about hackers’ attacking
Twitter’s site, he said, explaining that it faces security issues all
the time and has technology to deal with the
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:46:33PM -0600, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
While I tend to trust Steve and Spamhaus because of their built up
reputation, it would be helpful if some concrete facts were published about
the more than 40 criminal-run sites operating on the same IP address as
additional evidence
http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/mdl.php?search=41947colsearch=Allquantity=50inactive=on
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:46:33PM -0600, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
While I tend to trust Steve and Spamhaus
On 19/12/10 18:51, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Not for nothing, but Spamhaus wasn't the only organization to warn about
Heihachi:
http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/
All the domains listed by Trend Micro as neighbours appear to be down.
Have to say as someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Simon Waters sim...@zynet.net wrote:
On 19/12/10 18:51, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Not for nothing, but Spamhaus wasn't the only organization to warn about
Heihachi:
On 12/18/2010 9:52 PM, Joseph Prasad wrote:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx
Given the season, their efforts appear to be a form of mulled whine.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On 12/18/10 7:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Robert E. Seastromr...@seastrom.com
... I can see a future where you buy internet from
the cable co and they give you the basic cable TV channel lineup at
no charge but in reality, you're paying for the cable internet what
you used to pay for
On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 12/18/2010 9:52 PM, Joseph Prasad wrote:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx
Given the season, their efforts appear to be a form of mulled whine.
Well, if you have followed the news, it
On 12/19/2010 08:33 PM, Ned Moran wrote:
additional evidence
http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/mdl.php?search=41947colsearch=Allquantity=50inactive=on
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:46:33PM -0600, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
On 12/17/10 12:08 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
George Bonser wrote:
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO subscriber?
The municipality gets a cut of that in a profit sharing agreement. The point
was, everyone gets their tax or toll along the way.
Dave, perhaps you would be kind
Thanks for your note and the many others. I think it could have been stated
more clearly that wikileaks.info, while in a bad neighborhood, and set up to
suggest it is Wikileaks or part of the Wikileaks organization, does not (at
this time) host or facilitate distribution of malware. The Spamhaus
Hi there
I was wondering about DWDM equipment on a single strand fiber.
What are the capabilities of a mainstream DWDM equipment operating
on a single strand of fiber on terms of number of channels and reach?
By mainstream I mean equipment somewhere in the middle of the price
range for DWDM, like
Well, if you have followed the news, it comes down to the fact that
some of our old friends from WSIS/WGIG/IGF+ICANN/GAC we're the
government and we like the idea of being in charge friends are at it
again. In one corner, Brazil, China, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia;
in the other, US,
The franchise fees in many markets are based on gross revenue. 5% is a
fairly standard percentage charged by municipalities to cable companies
for right of way access, etc. Not sure if I would call this a profit
sharing plan, but it's not too much of a stretch. Today with local
agreements
fred, and others with (misspent) wsis++ / ig++ travel nickles,
it would _really_ help me if you provided more context, off-line if
necessary, as i spent the week before last more involved with the gac
than at any prior point in my decade of icann involvement.
i don't mind the 'tude, as we
In a message written on Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:16:27PM -0500, William Allen
Simpson wrote:
That would be against the law in Michigan. And I've never heard of any
cable company revealing its profits on a per municipality basis
Google finds some:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, if you have followed the news, it comes down to the fact that
some of our old friends from WSIS/WGIG/IGF+ICANN/GAC we're the
government and we like the idea of being in charge friends are at it
again. In one corner, Brazil, China, South
On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
They have been granted a monopoly by the local government for
wireline services, and in exchange for that monopoly need to act
in the public's interest. In the TV world this is things like
running the local community interest channel, and paying a
On Dec 19, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
fred, and others with (misspent) wsis++ / ig++ travel nickles,
it would _really_ help me if you provided more context, off-line if
necessary, as i spent the week before last more involved with the gac than at
any prior point in my
Google finds some:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7364
The Franchise Agreement requires ATT to pay the City $0.88 per
residential subscriber per month to maintain and enhance PEG access
services provided by MPAC. ATT has chosen to pass this $0.88 fee on
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level playing field, not by allowing one company to buy a monopoly
enforced by men with
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to the end user. But that would take
a
lot of work to
In a message written on Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields
wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame government
regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a level playing
field, not by allowing one company to buy a monopoly enforced
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level playing field, not by allowing one
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to the end user.
SE
On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project?
Because they'd have to dig up the streets, people's yards, etc. to do it.
There really are some natural
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a month so there can be true competition in end-user services.
Take a second and
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:12:02PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
they may be onto
On 12/19/10 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level
one of the most interesting things about coming to Australia (after working in
the USA telecom industry for 20 years) was the opportunity to see such a
proposal (the NBN) put into practice. who knows if the NBN will be quite what
everyone hopes, but the premise is sound, the last mile is a
Once upon a time, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
50 - it simply won't make financial sense for additional players to try
I believe that 'competition' in the last mile is a red herring that
simply maintains the status quo (which for many broadband consumers is
woefully inadequate). I agree with you that the USA has too many
lobbyists to ever put such a proposal in place, the telecoms in a
large
number of
On 12/19/2010 06:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
they may be onto something. We don't have to
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a month so there can
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:12:02PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JC Dilljcdill.li...@gmail.com said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
50 - it simply won't make financial
On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You can send letters
Technically, this is illegal. You can send documents via FedEx and UPS.
just as well as packages via the other carriers.
The USPS monopoly on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter
You can send letters just as well as packages via the other carriers.
The USPS monopoly on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx,
UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
There are certain legalities involved with first class mail that is not
the same with
Yes... This is where the market makes it best philosophy fails. When
the
market has become entrenched in one way of doing things, a better way
can face serious opposition because of this very fact.
The problem is that we don't *have* a market in many places. We have a
monopoly provider and
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
C 1925 when each subscriber (or party line) had their own pair:
Hello,
It seems that 192.175.48.6 and 192.175.48.42 not replying to RFC1918
addresses DNS-reverse lookups.
Does anybody noticed this?
--
wbr, Oleg.
http://pinkbunnyears.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/telephone-pole.jpg
true beauty that only a perl code maintainer could fully appreciate
In message 132161292830...@web62.yandex.ru, \Oleg A. Arkhangelsky\ writes
:
Hello,
It seems that 192.175.48.6 and 192.175.48.42 not replying to RFC1918
addresses DNS-reverse lookups.
Does anybody noticed this?
These machines are anycast and run by multiple operators. You will
need to
On 2010-12-20 08:36, Oleg A. Arkhangelsky wrote:
Hello,
It seems that 192.175.48.6 and 192.175.48.42 not replying to RFC1918
addresses DNS-reverse lookups.
Does anybody noticed this?
As those addresses are generally hosted by AS112 instances (see
http://www.as112.net) it depends to which
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a
54 matches
Mail list logo
