-Original Message-
From: Kenny Kant [mailto:akennyk...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:35 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Upstream / Handoff UPS?
We have tons of circuits with various providers. Often times the
demarc / handoff switch from the provider is not running on
Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
removal of taps? :-)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jacque O'Lantern
jacque.olant...@yandex.com wrote:
I have several clients who have cisco Metro Ethernet switches on Fiber
circuits. The provider just provided the switch and expects the client to
deal with the power. The rational is if the switch is not up it's not our
fault.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTCNA CCNA
Mail admins wanting matching forward/reverse DNS and hostnames that
don't look dynamically generated is probably more of a human than an
RFC thing:
Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without
matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking
for it
John Levine wrote:
Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without
matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking for
it is a very effective heuristic.
Leading digit is clearly in widespread use beyond 3com 1and1. One of the most
effective
In the last few hours it has picked off multiple messages from each of these:
caro...@8447.com
jef...@3550.com
ronal...@0785.com
kevi...@2691.com
debora...@3585.com
kimberl...@5864.com
sara...@0858.com
zav...@131.com
qgmklyy...@163.com
pjp...@163.com
fahu...@163.com
danie...@4704.com
On 10/30/2013 9:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As I think I've said before on this list, when we tried to get
consensus on that claim in the DNSOP WG at the IETF, we couldn't.
Indeed, we couldn't even get consensus on the much more bland
statement, Some people rely on the reverse, and you might
163.com (as well as 126.com which you don't have listed) is a bit of a
special case.
It's a Chinese site that offers free email address as well as a very
popular portal site - think of it as the Chinese equivalent to Yahoo or
Hotmail.
Whilst it's certainly true that a lot of spam originates from
In message 5272e4a6.9080...@dcrocker.net, Dave Crocker writes:
On 10/30/2013 9:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As I think I've said before on this list, when we tried to get
consensus on that claim in the DNSOP WG at the IETF, we couldn't.
Indeed, we couldn't even get consensus on the much
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
removal of taps? :-)
No need for intrusive techniques such as direct taps:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=truearnumber=1494884
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
removal of taps? :-)
No need for intrusive techniques such as direct taps:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
removal
As a top-posting IT generalist pleb, can someone explain why
Google/Yahoo did not already encrypt their data between DCs?
Why is my data encrypted over the internet from my computer to theirs,
but they don't encrypt the data when it goes outside their building and
all the fancy access controls
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM, explanoit explanoit.na...@explanoit.com wrote:
As a top-posting IT generalist pleb, can someone explain why Google/Yahoo
did not already encrypt their data between DCs?
Why is my data encrypted over the internet from my computer to theirs, but
they don't encrypt
14 matches
Mail list logo
