On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:53:21PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> If the product managers for smart speakers and smart TVs are successful,
> and replace am/fm radios and cable/over-the-air TVs in households,
> eventually there will be a catastrophe. After the catstrophe, the public
> (and
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:51:04AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:14 AM Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> The NEST guys also didn't seem very receptive to the emergency alert stuff
> when I contacted them.
And the NEST folk say there is NO WAY that you will ever
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:52:29PM -, John Levine wrote:
> In article
>
A routing/filtering problem probably between
be2185.ccr22.cle04.atlas.cogentco.com
and be2009.ccr21.alb02.atlas.cogentco.com.
--
-=[Lou Katz]=-
Composed on an ASR33
regarding DDoS. Please contact me off-list.
--
-=[L]=-
Reassembled from random thought waves
We have a saying here on Jupiter -- everybody talks about the Great Red
Spot but nobody does anything about it. - Lauren Weinstein
Please contact me offlist about an NTP attack.
--
-=[L]=-
Composed on an ASR33
Linux? Is that an OS, like Pentium?
One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
to his domain's A record machine, despite the fact that he has valid MX records.
The A record points to my webserver, which does not normally accept mail
for
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:38:31AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 7/26/12, Lou Katz l...@metron.com wrote:
One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
to his domain's A record machine, despite
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:05:55AM -0500, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
to his domain's A record machine, despite
The other day, I looked carefully at my auth.log (Xubuntu 11.04) and discovered
many lines
of the form:
Jun 28 13:13:54 localhost sshd[12654]: Bad protocol version
identification '\200F\001\003\001' from 94.252.177.159
In the past day, I have recorded about 20,000 unique IP addresses
The real question is why the referrer field was not under user control
in the first place. Having to never click on a link, but rather to
cut and paste it into the address bar is not a satisfactory work-around.
Still, why has it not been put under user control, now that we have a better
The problem that I see with browser response to self-signed (or org generated)
certs is
not the warning(s) but the assertion that the cert is invalid. Not issued by
one of the
players in the Protection Racket does not make the cert invalid. It may be
untrustable,
unreliable, from an unknown
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 08:12:31PM -0400, Max wrote:
Was PBS one of the companies you are referring to? A colleague of
mine worked as a developer on a project at PBS in the 90s that used
the blanking interval for Internet transmissio - very cool stuff.
snip
The one that was _much_ more
Sadly, no report that I have seen has indicated that any legal process or court
order
was in action.
--
-=[L]=-
Reassembled from random thought waves
... the puckish comment of Gertrude Stein: There ain't no answer. There
ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/5/2010 11:17, Joseph C. Bender wrote:
Perhaps economic pressure will be a good enough reason for the
registrars to actually get moving and make progress with better support.
OpenSRS kept my business because they at
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 01:22:51PM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
i am looking for a referral to a registrar who can get me a .cn domain,
without registering it on my behalf then extorting me.
i saw a notice that CNNIC suspended non-chinese registrars, but i haven't
found anything telling me
We recently were told to contact a client (via ftp) at 192.0.0.201. IANA lists
this as
Special Use, but refers to RFC 3330 for additional information.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt;.
This RFC says that it might be assigned in the future.
So, did the folks who sent us the IP address
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:48:25PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
Will be interesting to see if ISPs respond to a large scale thing like
this taking hold by blocking UDP/TCP 53 like many
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic
that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name
servers.
Who wants
19 matches
Mail list logo
