Gmail failure recently?

[Hank Nussbacher]

I woke today to find that all my Inbox items from May 1-Nov 15, 2016
were missing.  All other folders are intact.  Missing emails are not in
Spam, Trash, Archive or auto-fwded.  Did pswd reset and have initiated a
request to restore the missing emails, but am wondering whether others
have experienced some sort of Gmail failure in the past 8 hours.

Thanks,
Hank

Re: NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <7077df16-64ae-822d-8ce0-ba44129e2...@gmx.com>, 
Large Hadron Collider  wrote:

>> And that includes the bogus info you put into your WHOIS records too!
>> Seriously, I give you credit for at least picking out a valid random
>> street address, somewhere in fly-over country, but if you're going to
>> go to all the trouble to pick yourself out a domain name, set it all
>> up and then somehow snooker ARIN into delegating an entire /21's worth
>> of reverse DNS to it, then my god, at least pick out something that has
>> an air of believability to it, you know, like austin4u.net or texnets.net
>> or something... not saversagreeable.com which is so totally and transparently
>> bogus.
>What if it was originally going to be a forum site for couponers who 
>aren't arrogant about it, and then they got sidetracked?

Yea.  Right.  And I'm sure they thought that they were gonna need an
entire /21 to host one web site.

The smell from this is so bad it almost defies description.


Regards,
rfg

Re: NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation

[Large Hadron Collider]

Engage glasses and safety squints.


On 2016-11-13 07:41 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

In message <20161114004152.ga27...@panix.com>,
Brett Frankenberger  wrote:


On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 03:57:19PM -0800, Christopher Morrow wrote:

So... actually someone did tell arin to aim these at
ns1/2google.com...
I'll go ask arin to 'fix the glitch'.

For 138.8.204.in-addr.arpa ...

ARIN is delegating to ns[12].saversagreeable.com

The NS records on the saversagreeable.com servers are pointing to
ns[12].google.com.


 http://pastebin.com/raw/VNwmgMHh


Right, which is what I said.

To borrow a word from our former Dear Leader, I misunderestimated the
level of either (a) devilish deception or else (b) ordinary garden-
variety sheer technical incompence on the part of the current illicit
inhabitants of 204.8.136.0/21.  And really, I don't even give them
much credit for brains, so it is probably the latter, which is
somewhat depressing.
I'm not sure what's funnier - Dear Leader, "misunderestimated" or your 
opinion of intelligence level.


I mean seriously geeezz!  What's the world coming to?  It seems that
the clubs for the low-life deadbeat spammers and IP hijackers are letting
*anybody* in these days.  I am always annoyed by spam and spammers, but
I get REALLY annoyed when I get spammed by nitwits who can't even find
their own asses with both hands when it comes to something as simple as
setiing up their DNS properly.  Next thing you know, they'll be making
bonehead novice mistakes like leaving out the trailing periods in the
Right Places in their zone files.

True fact: I have made such boneheaded mistakes before.


Honstly, there ought to be a law.  If you're gonna spam me and use all
these different levels and kinds of deception... massivley violating
even the minimalist CAN-SPAM Act in the process...  then at least have
the courtesy, decency, and self-respect to at least do it in a workmanlike
and competent fashion!  I mean come on!

Like, make it a lessener for the sentence?


And that includes the bogus info you put into your WHOIS records too!
Seriously, I give you credit for at least picking out a valid random
street address, somewhere in fly-over country, but if you're going to
go to all the trouble to pick yourself out a domain name, set it all
up and then somehow snooker ARIN into delegating an entire /21's worth
of reverse DNS to it, then my god, at least pick out something that has
an air of believability to it, you know, like austin4u.net or texnets.net
or something... not saversagreeable.com which is so totally and transparently
bogus.
What if it was originally going to be a forum site for couponers who 
aren't arrogant about it, and then they got sidetracked?


And while you're at it, you should also at least make the WHOIS street
address and the phone number area code line up, if not with the place
you are pretending to be (Austin, TX) then at least with each other.
What if you live in BC, Canada (250 code) and your business phone number 
is rate-centred in Vermont, USA (802 code) and the same business 
primarily serves the latter?

Honestly, Christ!  I've looked at enough phone numbers in enough spammer
WHOIS records that I haven't needed to Google area code 702 in years to
know that it ain't nowhere near Indianapolis.  (Duh!)

Look, spammers are gonna spam and hijackers are gonna hijack.  We all
know this, and for the most part, we've all come to accept it, because
there are just too many crooks and/or too many incompetents at every
level in the system to ever make it all go away.  But if you're gonna
spam and/or squat on IP space that clearly isn't your's, then at least
have the dignity to actually *earn* your ill-gotten gains, you know,
by setting up your deceptions properly.  This crap in 204.8.136.0/21
may fool the folks at ARIN, but nobody else is buying it, because you
set it up so badly.  You are a discredit to spammers and hijackers,
and that's saying a lot.  This is your "job" fer chrissake?  Don't you
have any pride?

'nuff said.


P.S.  Sorry for the rant everybody, but sometimes it just really gets
to me when I see quite this level of stoopid in the spammer community.
In general I loath and despise spammers, but for some of them at least,
I have a grudging respect, because at least they are good at their jobs.
But these guys ain't among them.  Everything the've done here is so
transparently bogus that my dog could spot it, and he's blind in one
eye.

100%. That just puts the icing on the cake.

Nanog Politics [was: Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]]

[Alexander Maassen]

Whether it's politics, non-politics, related, offtopic, whatever. It has
been discussed in here for lengths and overlengths. This one is no
different. And hey, rules exist to be bend >:-)

Second, the content of the topic will affect ALL of us, whether you are an
ISP, simple admin/tech or anyone else watching and participating on this
list as it discusses changes that are to be expected getting a new
president with his new associates who probably only looks at the cashflow
without having any clue about the technical difficulties and problems they
will cause.

In all the time I am monitoring nanog know, there is one thing I learned:
If you don't like it, simply move it to /dev/null and ignore the contents.

On Sun, November 13, 2016 11:01 pm, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Rod,
>
> I respectfully disagree. This is discussing politics, not the "operational
> and technical issues" of NANOG's charter.
>
> There are other venues for politics. NANOG's AUP prohibits political
> discussions.
>
>  -mel
>
> On Nov 13, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Rod Beck
> >
> wrote:
>
>
> Public policy affecting networks is a legitimate topic. Net neutrality has
> been discussed countless times on this board with no objection from
> anybody.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Roderick.
>
>
> 
> From: NANOG > on
> behalf of Mel Beckman >
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:37 PM
> To: sur...@mauigateway.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Eisenach & the FCC - was: [Re: Here we go again.]
>
> Before this snowball gets any bigger, I would like to reiterate the
> previous commenter calling for this present political discussion to move
> elsewhere. Here's the NANOG AUP we've all agreed to:
>
>
>
> NANOG Acceptable Use Policy
>
> * Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as
> described in the charter of NANOG.
> Current Charter | North American Network Operators
> Group
> www.nanog.org
> As amended October 6, 2010. 1. Preamble. The North American Network
> Operators' Group (NANOG) exists to promote dialog between people
> concerning the creation ...
>
>
>
> * Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited.
>
> * Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited.
>
>
>
> You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
>
>  -mel
>
> On Nov 13, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Scott Weeks
> >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---
> jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
> wrote:
>
> The president elect chose Mr Eisenach to help fill jobs in FCC
> and other telecom areas of govt.
> 
>
>
>
> That'll have impact on ops, if some of the papers are correct.
> Briefly:
>
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/09/under-trump-the-future-of-net-neutrality-and-broadband-is-uncert
> [https://s.aolcdn.com/dims5/amp:a6317e0b93421c087f056ab209b700d98a021849/t:1200,630/q:80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.aolcdn.com%2Fdims-shared%2Fdims3%2FGLOB%2Fcrop%2F4666x2539%2B0%2B0%2Fresize%2F1600x871%21%2Fformat%2Fjpg%2Fquality%2F85%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fs.aolcdn.com%2Fhss%2Fstorage%2Fmidas%2F914aeeebf580a22eca2109764d528600%2F204549332%2F2d3a00d2e6d34d28a309ce5a6622451b.jpeg]
>
> Under Trump the future of Net Neutrality and broadband is
> uncertain
> www.engadget.com
> On January 20th, Donald Trump will be sworn in as president of the United
> States. With a Republican-controlled House and Senate behind him, things
> in this count...
>
>
>
> "Eisenach has made a career out of crusading against industry
> regulation"
>
> "...authored several papers and op-ed pieces that were funded by
> Net Neutrality opponents ..."
>
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-fcc-net-neutrality-zero-rating-policy-future-2016-11
>
> "The Economics of Zero Rating." In it, Eisenach defends the concept,
> writing that "broad-based bans or restrictions on zero-rating plans
> are likely to be counterproductive and harm consumer welfare."
>
>
>
> Interesting times ahead...
>
>
> scott
>