On 2009-12-15, at 15:45, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
example.comINMX 0 .
Question: Is this a valid dns construct or did the proposal die? I don't
want to cause people problems but at
On 2009-12-15, at 19:09, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Eric J. Esslinger:
I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
example.comINMX 0 .
I think this is quite controversal.
My impression from discussions on various IETF lists
On 16/12/2009 06:12, James Hess wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Armstrongli...@memetic.org wrote:
personally, i'd recommend not being a dick and setting valid *meaningful*
reverse dns for things relaying mail.
Many sites don't use names that will necessarily be
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
One might instead consider using:
example.com.IN MX 0 192.0.2.0
IN MX 10 192.0.2.1
...
IN MX 90 192.0.2.9
Which will expand to:
example.com. IN MX 0
Wouldn't SPF ( RFC 4408) tell people more about where the real mailservers
are than some half-baked idea of trying to enforce what hostnames should
look like?
What's the word for 'mail server' in Lower Sorbian, and does your algorithm
properly detect it in a hostname? See the problem here?
On
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:12:22AM -0600, James Hess wrote:
Many sites don't use names that will necessarily be meaningful to an outsider.
Then they should expect issues with mail acceptance by outsiders.
Some sites might want to avoid certain meaningful RDNS entries
since spammers,
and
benefit from our data and reports. Feel free to drop us a note anytime
and give us your feedback.
Shadowserver has posted a new blog about this at:
http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Calendar/20091216
The Conficker stats and charts page can be found here:
http://www.shadowserver.org
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Mike Lieman mikelie...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't SPF ( RFC 4408) tell people more about where the real mailservers
are than some half-baked idea of trying to enforce what hostnames should
look like?
What's the word for 'mail server' in Lower Sorbian, and does
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:06:55 EST, Mike Lieman said:
What's the word for 'mail server' in Lower Sorbian, and does your algorithm
properly detect it in a hostname? See the problem here?
When the hostname at that IP address is exactly one incremented character
different than the preceding
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
When the hostname at that IP address is exactly one incremented character
different than the preceding address, and one decremented character different
than the following address, and that pattern holds across a /24, they're
probably not mail servers. Nobody has
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, James Hess wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Armstrong li...@memetic.org wrote:
personally, i'd recommend not being a dick and setting valid *meaningful*
reverse dns for things relaying mail.
Many sites don't use names that will necessarily be meaningful to an
Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Very true. At my old place of employment a DUHL listed an ip since
before my previous company existed. For some reason, when we obtained
it, they still listed it. Sounds like a bug in the DUHL bot to me.
Also the standard makes a lot of sense. You may be on Trend Micros
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
Two sides of an SP's coin: I want to maximize my e-mail servers'
deliverability, so I make sure those have appropriately named PTRs
and make
sure that outbound messages aren't spammy; I also want to restrict
The point he was
Please reply to the list, not me and the list!
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
thing is that it's illegal to maintain a database with personal details
which ip addresses according to various german courts are (don't ask..
mmk? ;) ofcourse we all know ip addresses identify nodes on a network, not
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:21 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:06:55 EST, Mike Lieman said:
What's the word for 'mail server' in Lower Sorbian, and does your algorithm
properly detect it in a hostname? See the problem here?
When the hostname at that IP address is
Matthew Petach wrote:
Take a look at the reverse DNS for the entire 66.163.178.0/23 subnet;
you'll find that when you're doing things at large scale, you can't really
get away from having sequentially numbered reverse DNS entries all
in a row, exactly as you seem to think Nobody has. :/
Of
Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Thank you, I wasn't aware, and it will be corrected (doesn't say
3-5hours still so I'd love to find that one).
There is this text I see, which seems to disagree with the robot's
behavior in my case (from the
* matt...@sorbs.net (Michelle Sullivan) [Wed 16 Dec 2009, 17:41 CET]:
[..]
. The obvious answer is if you have signed SLAs then you should
adhere to those SLAs as a minimum and give better service if time
allows... Hands up those who have an SLA (free or not) with an RBL
maintainer... I
In message 167cab40-71d7-4bf9-988a-1a188b433...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley writes
:
On 2009-12-15, at 19:09, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Eric J. Esslinger:
=20
I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
example.comINMX 0 .
=20
I realize we're a bit off-topic, but to be tangential to the original topic,
and thus barely relevant:
(Presuming the sink.arpa. thing succeeds, big presumption I realize...)
So, how about using sink.arpa. as a(n) MNAME?
Or perhaps, one of the hosts listed in AS112?
Maybe a new AS112 entry
On 2009-12-16, at 20:44, Brian Dickson wrote:
So, how about using sink.arpa. as a(n) MNAME?
That was another imagined use of SINK.ARPA.
Or perhaps, one of the hosts listed in AS112?
My personal opinion is that there's an operational need for some people to
receive an explicit reply from
* Mark Newton (new...@internode.com.au) wrote:
On 15/12/2009, at 11:19 PM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
So what you are saying is that ease of use and service availability is
priority one. Then what exactly are the responsibilities of the ISP and CPE
manufacturer when it comes to security?
Hey gang, just curious if anyone else has been having any issues with
level3 (as3356) here in Seattle? 4 times today traffic transiting
them has been blackholed for 1-2 minutes, and then recovers. No route
withdrawals, etc.. just blackholing for a few minutes.
Has happened 4 times now today, a
It might be associated with some backbone problems that internap
reported starting this morning. I got the all is fixed email about an
hour ago.
CL
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Rogers [mailto:phi...@phiber.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Could be the AboveNet fiber they are likely using between the facilities.
Bryan
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lowe [mailto:cl...@intelius.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Christopher Rogers; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Issues with level3 in Seattle
It might be
Hi William,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at Mon, 14 Dec 2009, William
Pitcock wrote:
Does anyone know of a webservice that converts a given IP into the
public CIDR range that belongs to? I am developing a tool where IP to
CIDR conversion based on RIR whois data would be
Niels Bakker wrote:
* matt...@sorbs.net (Michelle Sullivan) [Wed 16 Dec 2009, 17:41 CET]:
[..]
. The obvious answer is if you have signed SLAs then you should
adhere to those SLAs as a minimum and give better service if time
allows... Hands up those who have an SLA (free or not) with an
on Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 06:01:51PM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
...and if people used static and dynamic keywords in DNS as I
suggested in my previously mentioned draft, there would be *NO NEED*
for DUL/DUHL/PBL lists at all because people could create a very
simple set of patterns to match
On 12/16/09 3:59 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
One might instead consider using:
example.com.IN MX 0 192.0.2.0
IN MX 10 192.0.2.1
...
IN MX 90 192.0.2.9
Which
On 2009-12-17, at 00:02, Douglas Otis wrote:
To avoid server access and hitting roots:
host-1.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.0
...
host-10.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.9
example.com. IN MX 0 host-1.example.com.
...
example.com. IN MX 90 host-10.example.com.
This will still cause DNS
Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org writes:
If MX TEST-NET became common, legitimate email handlers unable to
validate messages prior to acceptance might find their server
resource constrained when bouncing a large amount of spam as well.
none of this will block spam. spammers do not follow
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 16:55 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
thing is that it's illegal to maintain a database with personal details
which ip addresses according to various german courts are (don't ask..
mmk? ;) ofcourse we all know ip addresses identify nodes on a network, not
persons,
On 12/16/09 4:48 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Douglas Otisdo...@mail-abuse.org writes:
If MX TEST-NET became common, legitimate email handlers unable to
validate messages prior to acceptance might find their server
resource constrained when bouncing a large amount of spam as well.
none of this
...and if people used static and dynamic keywords in DNS as I suggested
in my previously mentioned draft,
What are the words for static and dynamic in Lower Sorbian?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:12 -0800, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know of a webservice that converts a given IP
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:21:42 PST, Matthew Petach said:
You clearly haven't set up webmail farms to handle half a billion accounts
before. ^_^;
Yes, but we all already know who those 800 pound gorillas are. If you're
doing automagic handling of this sort of DNS data, and not using a regexp
to
Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org writes:
Agreed. But it will impact providers generating a large amount of bounce
traffic, and some portion of spam sources that often start at lower
priority MX records in an attempt to find backup servers without valid
recipient information. In either case,
37 matches
Mail list logo
