Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

In message <2066629.bbq8kxn...@skynet.simkin.ca>, Alan Hodgson writes: > On Wednesday 29 March 2017 14:28:30 Carl Byington wrote: > > For an example of that (unless I am misunderstanding something), we > > have: > > > > --> Hello marketo-email.box.com [192.28.147.169], pleased to meet you > >

RE: Alternatives to bgpmon?

I just signed up for the free account .. gonna give a spin Victor -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Murphy, William Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:51 PM To: 'David Hubbard' ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE:

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: > > Why aren't _ALL_ consumer privacy regulations managed by the FTC? > > Why is the FCC needed here? > > -Dan This was a consequence of the FCC declaring "information services” a Title II service in an attempt to

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:02:45 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said: > >> And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill. > > Hate to break it to you, but most of the gripes you have here are things > you really *want* to do

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

The vast majority of obligations you describe continue to exist and don't have anything to do with this bill. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote: > > > > Lowering barriers to entry is

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Wednesday 29 March 2017 14:28:30 Carl Byington wrote: > For an example of that (unless I am misunderstanding something), we > have: > > --> Hello marketo-email.box.com [192.28.147.169], pleased to meet you > <-- MAIL FROM:<$mun...@marketo-email.box.com> > <-- RCPT TO: ... > > dkim pass

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Why aren't _ALL_ consumer privacy regulations managed by the FTC? Why is the FCC needed here? -Dan On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Mark Radabaugh wrote: On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote: Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be. Joe

RE: Alternatives to bgpmon?

We are going to be trying ThousandEyes... They provide flexible alerting rules for various BGP issues and their visualization is excellent, kind of like BGPlay on steroids... Bill -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard Sent:

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

I'm not saying such detailed regulation is really necessary, but it's not really a huge barrier either. Just try to open a food truck (all the rage these ads). You'll find many more regulations than this. The answer to over regulation is political lobbying. A good idea would be requiring

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 09:24 -0700, Alan Hodgson wrote: > So for DMARC+SPF to pass not only must the message come from a source > authorized by the envelope sender domain, but that domain must be the > same domain (or parent domain or subdomain) of

RE: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

The purpose of SPF is to REJECT messages before the data phase. This cannot be done if you are checking the RFC-822 From: header since that requires accepting the message and invalidates the entire purpose of SPF. I have never seen an SPF implementation that uses the RFC-822 header From.

Re: Alternatives to bgpmon?

Hi David, My secret spy satellite informs me that David Hubbard wrote On 2017-03-29, 12:21 PM: > Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon > (external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since > their OpenDNS acquisition, I’ve found the

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:02:45 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said: > And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill. Hate to break it to you, but most of the gripes you have here are things you really *want* to do - they're things that reduce your personal liability and/or chance of ending

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

+1bazillion What mark said! On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote: > > > > Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be. > > > > Joe Loiacono > > > > And there

Re: Alternatives to bgpmon?

Hey, maybe is https://www.thousandeyes.com/ a option. Best, Jan-Philipp Am 29.03.17 um 21:21 schrieb David Hubbard: Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon (external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since their OpenDNS

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote: > > Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be. > > Joe Loiacono > And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill. Read the actual Report and Order:

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote: > On Wednesday 29 March 2017 11:12:33 William Herrin wrote: > > Both SPF and DKIM are meant to be checked against the domain in the > > envelope sender (SMTP protocol-level return address) which the NANOG list > >

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Sorry guys. A bit of Percocet on the brain here. Yay broken spine! I meant a tizzy about AT and their spying on home fiber customers. They claim they don't do it anymore and offer the lower price to everyone. -- Ryan Stoner On Mar 29, 2017 2:17 PM, wrote: > Ryan, > > No,

Alternatives to bgpmon?

Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon (external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since their OpenDNS acquisition, I’ve found the service not working reliably, as in I receive no alerts even when I’m intentionally taking one of our

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > While I haven't looked at real mailing list software recently > (e.g. mailman) when I last did they didn't suport this either and > it took a pile of 3rd party hacks to make it work. The latest versions of Mailman (2.1.23 and

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

* Grant Taylor via NANOG: > On 03/29/2017 04:17 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't >> know about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects >> missed it, or seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all >> the

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Wednesday 29 March 2017 11:12:33 William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb wrote: > > Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is > > concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing > > the

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

In a message written on Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:58:38AM -0600, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > I also strongly recommend that mailing lists be viewed as an entity unto > themselves. I.e. they receive the email, process it, and generate a new > email /from/ /their/ /own/ /address/ with very

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote: > The gold standard, Spamassassin, does not. Indeed, the message to > which I reply was scored by spam assassin as "SPF_PASS" even though > you do not include NANOG's servers in the SPF

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

All if you are in a tizzy over a policy that's been dead for a while. < https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/30/att-internet-fees-privacy/%3Fsource%3Ddam > -- Ryan Stoner On Mar 29, 2017 6:26 AM, "Rich Kulawiec" wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:48:11AM

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Having worked networks with massive bandwidth, networks with a single T1 > (don’t ask, just Google what a T1 is, er, was) I've lurked on this mailing list for months, and never felt obligated to chime in until now. Thanks for reminding me

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Alexa ran into this problem... https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-unit-settles-privacy-lawsuit/ Tim On 3/28/17 11:45 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > No ISPs have any right to market our customers browsing history, and > currently that practice is illegal unless the customer opts in. In my > opinion,

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

Indeed, in more detail (which I omitted for simplicity), these checks are performed in a series of headers, the last of which is the From: header. I think the “envelope-from” is either the first or the second in this 5-point list. That said, there are a lot of implementations out there that do

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > Every SPF implementation I've seen has checked the SMTP envelope FROM > address /and/ the RFC 822 From: header address. > Hi Grant, The gold standard, Spamassassin, does not. Indeed, the message to which I reply

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On 03/29/2017 09:12 AM, William Herrin wrote: Both SPF and DKIM are meant to be checked against the domain in the envelope sender (SMTP protocol-level return address) which the NANOG list sets to nanog-boun...@nanog.org. Checking against the message header "from" address is an incorrect

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

Bill, If that's the case, then Microsoft appears to be at fault here. I'll try opening a ticket (I know. Windmills :) -mel On Mar 29, 2017, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin > wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb wrote: > Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is > concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing > the following: > > SPF: Each domain adds a list of IP Addresses that are

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

On 03/29/2017 04:17 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't know about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects missed it, or seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all the messages. I don't think they did miss it

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be. Joe Loiacono From: Mike Hammett To: Cc: NANOG list Date: 03/29/2017 09:13 AM Subject:Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

I know most of the people in the thread have been doing this a long time, the others I just don't know anything about them. FWIW: Glass has been running an ISP for 20 - 25 years, has given Congressional\FCC testimony, etc. He's not an industry slouch either, just with a different political

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > ISPs lying? Sounds like something for the courts, not capitol hill. You can’t sue someone because they do something you do not like. Well, you can, but you won’t win. I guess you could ask for the providers to put it in

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Mike: I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network professional, but I hope you know I’ve been doing “ISP stuff” for a couple decades. I know how to work the system. There really are not any other broadband providers in my area. Hell, LTE doesn’t even work well in my house, and

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

And so what if it is? What's the downside here? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Rich Kulawiec" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:24:31 AM Subject:

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:48:11AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > What is lost if AT or Comcast sells my anonymized usage habits? They're NOT anonymized. Aren't you paying attention? Anonymization -- *real* anonymization -- is hard. Hard means expensive. It also reduces the sale price of the

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

What is lost if AT or Comcast sells my anonymized usage habits? Quite frankly I think targeting advertising is a great thing. On TV I see all kinds of commercials for medicine for diseases I've never heard of, old people complications I won't have for another 40 or 50 years, etc. Waste of my

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just marketing themselves poorly? Any nearby you could convince to expand? Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 broadband wireline and nearly that many enterprise fiber. I admit that may be exceptional.

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Davide, My example is simply a reductio ad absurdum, to demonstrate the error of the idea that ISPs should be allowed to resell data "because money". :) -mel > On Mar 29, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Davide Davini wrote: > > Even though your example is a bit melodramatic I

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

Antonia's, Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't know about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects missed it, or seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all the messages. -mel beckman > On Mar 29, 2017, at 12:04 AM, DaKnOb

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

Even though your example is a bit melodramatic I agree with the concept, all the arguments against the ownership that users have on their own data is just hogwash. If there needs to be government imposed regulations to ensure it, I have zero problems with it. On 29/03/2017 03:19, Mel Beckman

Re: Microsoft O365 labels nanog potential fraud?

Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing the following: SPF: Each domain adds a list of IP Addresses that are allowed to send e-mail on their behalf. DKIM: Each email sent by an