>The difference in blocking any of the existing ports on your list and
>blocking UDP/1900 is that the ports on your list are all registered
>ports. Port 1900 is not registered -
IANA is under the impression it's registered for SSDP. Do you have
some reason to believe they're mistaken?
http://w
>> A certain number of us work from home and connect to headquarters with
>> a VPN. and have SIP phones, you know.
>
>Not typically via/requiring the protocols you mentioned.
The VoIP phones sure use SIP.
R's,
John
>True, but how prevalent are 'bare' SIP phones vs. VoIP systems utilized
>by remote workers via VPNs?
Dunno, but I have two of them. I think that most if not all of the
consumer over the top VoIP phones like Vonage use SIP.
R's,
John
> _whois._tcp.pro. srv 0 100 43 whois.afilias.net.
A swell idea, but unfortunately the idea of putting SRV records in
gTLD zones makes heads at ICANN explode. For RDAP there's a registry
at IANA but it's not populated yet and it's not obvious that registries
will be any more diligent about
In article <90136824.12309.1460396310889.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you
write:
>So they launch exhaustive and expensive searches of lakes instead? :-)
I'm starting a new chain of kiosks that rent wet suits and snorkels.
R's,
John
>The problem with MaxMind (and other geoip databases I've seen that do Lat/Long
>as well as Country / State / Town) is that the
>data doesn't include uncertainty, so it returns "38.0/-97.0" rather than
>"somewhere in a 3000 mile radius circle centered on
>38.0/-97.0".
>
>Someone should show them
In article <20160411191347.gc4...@excession.tpb.net> you write:
>* baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Mon 11 Apr 2016, 21:02 CEST]:
>>They should stop giving out coordinates on houses period. Move the
>>coordinate to the nearest street intersection if you need to be that
>>precise (I woul
>There are similar problems with phone numbers. Google's libphonenumber,
>for example, will tell you that +1 855 266 7269 is in the US. It's not,
>it's Canadian. It appears that for any NANP "area code" that isn't
>assigned to a particular place libphonenumber just says "it's in the US"
>instead of
>> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8xx
>> toll free number, the switch uses a database to route the call to
>> whatever carrier handles it, who can then do whatever they want. The
>> provider for that number, Callture, is in Ontario but they can
>> terminate the cal
> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you
> really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the
> specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go
> to that switch in West San Jose.
Right, like I said three messages ago but
>Is there the equivalent of BGP for number portability where every telco
>has the full table of who owns each prefix as well as individual routes
>for ported numbers ?
Not really. There's a switch database used for routing calls, but
that's different from LNP which is a layer sort of above that.
>I question whether (on a global scale) the odds are above 50-50 that a
>number (other than a test line) is served by the switch NANPA associates
>with the number.
The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics
and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of n
>If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
>have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very
>expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is
>*supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets
>tend to move
In article <11287607.8005.1425056798993.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you
write:
>More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about
>symmetry. It's a
>simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload
>are taken out of MHz
>for download.
>Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
>oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of
>all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand
>standpoint.
Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here. We size
In article <54f0d533.70...@vocalabs.com> you write:
>My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.
It is. Just throttle your download speed to match your upload speed.
R's,
John
In article <54f0e159.2000...@satchell.net> you write:
>One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC
>will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for
>television during the time of the "fairness doctrine".
I agree, that's not going to happen.
With the
In article <54f32f1a.9090...@meetinghouse.net> you write:
>Scott,
>
>Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between
>servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running
>locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment?
There's always a lo
In article <20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org> you write:
>On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
>> currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
>
>Unfortunately, that's not entirely true.
In article <54f3d78a.5080...@satchell.net> you write:
>On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
>
>That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives
>its customers static addresses. Only one. Tha
In article <1c6ee78f6c1e400289fa7797f3ba6...@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com> you write:
>Given the size and that the data is stored in encrypted RAR files, I wonder if
>they
>just busted a Usenet service provider rather than a P2P / file sharing site.
Unlikely. There aren't that many large usenet provid
>SSLCertificateChainFile /etc/ssl/certs/gd_bundle-g2-g1.crt
>
>I have actually fixed it.
Yeah, that's always it.
Back in the good aulde days all of the SSL certs one might buy were
signed directly by the CA, but now more often than not there are
intermediate certs, and a valid cert needs to be ac
I get a cert good through Dec 31.
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 4993746626803195625 (0x454d5a195ce8dee9)
Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: C=US, O=Google Inc, CN=Google Internet Authority G2
Validity
Not Befo
In article you write:
>On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> We've been down this road before - we've had our own problems on this
>> side of the puddle with transit providers who refused to deal with problem
>> customers because the provider billed by the packet, and the customers
ewed
up. Bing and other services correctly find him in Alabama.
Poking around I see lots of advice about how to use Google's
geolocation data, but nothing on how to update it. Anyone
know the secret? TIA
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies
Some people I know (yes really) are building a system that will have
several thousand little computers in some racks. Each of the
computers runs Linux and has a gigabit ethernet interface. It occurs
to me that it is unlikely that I can buy an ethernet switch with
thousands of ports, and even if I
>> to have 10,000 entries or more in its ARP table.
>
>Agreed. :) You don't really want 10,000 entries in a routing FIB
>table either, but I was seriously encouraged by the work going
>on in linux 4.0 and 4.1 to improve those lookups.
One obvious way to deal with that is to put some manageable num
>> No test/plain? Delete without further ado.
Sadly, it is no longer 1998.
R's,
John
In article
you write:
>Juniper OCX1100 have 72 ports in 1U.
Yeah, too bad it costs $32,000. Other than that it'd be perfect.
R's,
John
>To the OP please do tell us more about what you are doing, it sounds
>very interesting.
There's a conference paper in preparation. I'll send a pointer when I can.
R's,
John
In article <555b8313.5080...@netassist.ua> you write:
>How much false positives (i.e. blackholing traffic users want to reach)?
Very little. The DROP list, which is what's in the BGP feed, is a
small subset of the SBL, and only includes blocks that send no
legitimate traffic at all.
>
>On 18.05
>And www.frontier.com has been broken for 6 days.
Works fine for me over v6 although the chain of TLS certificates looks
kind of funky.
R's,
John
In article
you write:
>Haha I cringe when I do a password recovery at a site and they either email
>the current pw to me in plain text or just as bad reset it then email it in
>plain text. Its really sad that stuff this bad is still so common.
If they do a reset, what difference does it make whe
number of patterns
other than running out of memory.
Find it here:
http://www.taugh.com/grepcidr-2/
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <6dfdc9f9-ee28-4263-8e5b-eb751b35b...@dataix.net> you write:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Hi John,
>
>Great contribution. Thanks
>
>Might I make a suggestion? with the following command it gives Invalid CIDR. In
>my u
Does anyone keep lists of the exit addresses of public VPN services?
I presume there is no need to explain why this would be of interest.
R's,
John
In article you write:
>
>On 10 Jun 2015, at 18:56, John Levine wrote:
>
>> I presume there is no need to explain why this would be of interest.
Gee, I appear to have presumed wrong. My concrete application is
vetting updates to the abuse.net contact database, to recognize people
>but 'well behaved smtp clients' should already be falling back right?
If you have multiple SMTP servers at the same priority, it's a pretty
broken client that doesn't try them all until one works.
That said, there is a depressing number of pretty broken SMTP clients.
R's,
John
>Uh huh. The numbers are clear: 99.99% of the time it works. The other
>0.01% of the time you're screwed and had better pray the user is one
>of the ones you can afford to lose.
>
>Unicast TCP breaks too, but it has the virtue of being fixable 100% of the
>time.
I love the wry humor on the nanog
In article
you
write:
>Looking at implementing DMARC for my institution.
What problem do you expect this to solve? This is a real question,
since you can be 100% sure that any DMARC policy will wreak havoc on
any of your users who use mailing lists like this one. Academic
institutions tend to
>IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast
>addresses was that too much deployed gear has it hardcoded as
>"reserved, future functionality unknown, do not use." Following an
>instruction to repurpose 240/4 as unicast addresses, such gear would
>not receive new firmware o
>Is the WSJ a wholly owned subsidiary of GOOG? It looks to me like a WSJ
>journalist said that.
If you read the paper, which is linked from the article and takes
about five minutes, you'll find that article is cheap clickbait and
has approximately nothing to do with the topic of the paper. As f
In article you write:
>But what is the "best compromise" strategy? Dual stack + CGN? Some kind of
>intelligent 6to4 NAT?
Depends on the application(s). One that seems to work OK is to dual
stack everyone and put them behind a NAT unless they ask to have a
private IP. Depending on who your cust
In article
you write:
>http://www.google.com/patents/US20130254423
This is not a patent. It is a patent application. Most applications
do not turn into patents, or at least not with all of the claims
included.
If you look at the claims, which are what matter, this is for a rather
specific hac
>I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our
>spanking new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable
>caution.
It's optimizing for the wrong thing. While the supply of IPv6
addresses exceeds any plausible demand, the supply of route slots in
routers does not
In article you write:
>Surely Microsoft has IPv6 connectivity? Is there a problem with my dns, or is
>Microsoft not available over v6?
Looks like it's your DNS.
; <<>> DiG 9.10.2-P2 <<>> www.microsoft.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR
>Same way it happens today. Business starts out small, uses IP space from
>their single ISP. Couple years later, they're bigger and want to dual-home
>for better uptime or other reasons. Unless there is something stopping them
>from advertising their ISP 'A' space out to ISP 'B' in IPv6 land, we
>I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
>other then the ipv6 adherents.
It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't.
Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to
handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner than it'd update its
s
>Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I
>advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they
>want/can.
Nobody's hindering you. You can get NAT boxes of all shapes and sizes.
If you want to mess around with class E addresses on your own network,
g
>> DDoS = multiple IPs
>>
>> DoS = single IP
>
>It seems most people colloquially use DDoS for both, and reserve DoS for
>magic-packet blocking exploits like the latest BIND CVE, FYI.
Given how easy it still is to put a fake source address in an IP
packet, it seems optimistic to assume that just
>Reaching out to DNS operators around the globe. Linkedin.com has had some
>issues with DNS
>and would like DNS operators to flush their DNS. If you see www.linkedin.com
>resolving NS to
>ns1617.ztomy.com or ns2617.ztomy.com then please flush your DNS.
>
>Any other info please reach out to me off
>"Registrar Primary" and "Registrar Auditor"
There are certainly registrars who are more security oriented than
Netsol. If you haven't followed all of the corporate buying and
selling, Netsol is now part of web.com, so their business is more to
support web hosting than to be a registrar.
I expec
In article <001a01ce6ef9$bf74d4a0$3e5e7de0$@iname.com> you write:
>It's 120M if you add the .COM and the .NET's together, both of which NetSol
>is responsible for.
>http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domain-name-services/
>registry-products/tld-zone-access/index.xhtml
In late b
> The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
>that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
>prefixes.
I would expect that we might finally see some pushback against
networks that announce lots of disaggregated prefixes. The current
CIDR report notes t
>I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
>paying the $186,000 then ...
Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
>Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
>guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
>
>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
>
>Ok, you're correct. I need to add that to my list of reading.
>I am just thinking about the digital divide getting larger
>(not sma
>> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
>> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
>Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
>for a virgin TLD.
Yes. See the AGB, to which I sent a link a few messages back.
>Anyone care to advance evidence that either zone has been, not "will
>someday be", significantly improved by the adoption of DS records?
>Evidence, not rhetoric, please.
I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
significantly improved by fire insurance?
>I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
>support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
>"our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
I've read the IPv6 and DNSSEC parts of a lot of the applications,
including the ones that aren't backed b
>Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
>confidence they have all the clue necessary?
Probably because they don't think that new TLDs are particularly
useful or valuable.
R's,
John
>No seems US company.
>http://www.helixsolutions.net/
They're registered at internet.bs with a private registration in
Panama.
What more do you need, a big flashing skull and crossbones?
> Don't know if it'll help or if this is simply old news to most, but
> the whois systems (whois.internic.net/whois.crsnic.net) have
> records and happily answer TCP/43 requests w/ the usual blurb, but all
> the servers I've hit then fail to actually provide data and instead
> the whois c
>I suspect the problem is the (offsite) hotel that Mark and I are at was not
>really prepared for a full house of folks interested in viewing streams,
>downloading documents, etc. (despite attempts to inform the hotel of the
>impending tsunami). I imagine folks involved in setting up NANOG-related
I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain wrong
to me, and unbound agrees, turning it into a SERVFAIL.
Here's a lookup that succeeds, an A record for mail.ic.fbi.gov:
$ dig @ns1.fbi.gov mail.ic.fbi.gov a +dnssec
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7222
;;
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:27:36PM +, John Levine wrote:
>> > I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain
>> > wrong to me, and unbound agrees, turning it into a SERVFAIL.
I heard back, seems like I found someone at the FBI who was a
In article you write:
>> To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
>> Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
>
>with no X- before it?
Well, yes:
draft-wmills-rrvs-header-field-01.txt
R's,
John
In article <52265aa4.6000...@free.fr> you write:
>Le 03/09/2013 23:28, John Levine a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:27:36PM +, John Levine wrote:
>>>>> I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain
>>>>> wro
>I heard back, seems like I found someone at the FBI who was able to
>explain the problem to Neustar (DNS software provider) who say they
>will fix it.
Seems to be fixed now. Here's the formerly broken query, via unbound:
; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P4 <<>> mail.ic.fbi.gov +dnssec
;; global options:
>This is pathetic. ARIN is supposed to be working as a steward of this
>IP space. When you have policies that make it more difficult to use the
>IP space this isn't even remotely close to stewardship. It's pathetic,
Unfortunately, a surprising number of "new" IP space owners turn out
to be th
I was talking to a bunch of people who run ISPs and other networks in
LDCs (yes, including Nigeria) and someone asked about monitoring tools
to watch traffic on his network so he can get advance warning of dodgy
customers and prevent complaints and blacklisting.
These people are plenty smart, but
>If people really want to use generic reverse names and have realised
>that the v6 address space is much too big for $GENERATE, one approach is
>to delegate the appropriate zones to a custom nameserver that can
>auto-generate PTRs on demand. There are scaling problems here, but
>probably nothing th
>Is there any reason other than email where clients might demand RDNS?
There's a few other protocols that want rDNS on the servers. IRC maybe.
Doing rDNS on random hosts in IPv6 would be very hard. Servers are
configured with static addresses which you can put in the DNS and
rDNS, but normal us
>it's a lot of work for example.com to return something like:
>
> 2001-0db8-85a3-0042-1000-8a2e-0370-7334.example.com
Add some NSEC3 records and, yeah, it's a lot of work. And for what?
>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
>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
>
In article you write:
>The balkanizing of the Net?
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/01/how-anti-nsa-backlash-could-fracture-the-internet-along-national-borders/
I expect we'll hear lots of pontification, quietly fading away when
someone explains to the pontificators ju
>MX, PTR, and SPF are really all you need.
So far so good, noting that a host name that doesn't look generic is
better than one that does.
> I would recommend you go a
>step further and use DKIM, ADSP, and DMARC.
Using DKIM is a good idea. Do *not* use ADSP. It is a failed
experiment which wil
nt, or are there screwed up NTP servers?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
In article you write:
>Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
>or not.
I saw the same thing, on an IP that has forward and reverse DNS and
mail that passes SPF. Burp, I guess.
>It occurs to me, you may have sent a bounce, where the envelope from is empty,
>therefore SPF would work on the domain in the helo/ehlo. People often
>forget to put a SPF record there... So there may be no SPF in fact...
Nope. In this case, Google was just messed up.
R's,
John
In article <030101cf0e0e$71088af0$5319a0d0$@truenet.com> you write:
>Looks like a bug, if you stick a 1 in total email users:
>Per Year: $504.00
No, that's right. If you're a tiny little network, you can
use the public DNS servers for the BL lookups, and you can
FTP the text version of DROP
I had some problems with incoming mail that I tracked down to a
configuration bug, two hosts on the same LAN configured to respond to
the IP address of the MX. It's fixed now.
While it was broken, attempts to send mail on some other systems got
"421 Downstream server error." That is not a messag
>> No, and they haven't been for many years. You're thinking of
>> Verisign. It owned NetSol at one time, but sold the registrar end
>> (which is what's still called Network Solutions) in 2003.
>
>Well, it's sort of metaphysical to ask which company is which, but...
NetSol and Verisign have been
>I suppose they COULD move their domain to a registrar that does
>registrar-lock for 'free', but that's a cost too, right? man power,
>configuration mistakes, other billing things to setup... 1800 might be
>'ok' for someone who's making a bunch of money/day. right?
That is the only plausible reaso
e desks. You
still have to run your own abuse desk, but it does a lot of the grunt
work for you.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener
>> At least to file the obvious crap into a different folder that can be
>> looked at and blown away
>
>Difficult, as spam complaints generally include the original spam and
>thus trigger SpamAssassin (almost) just as hard.
A complaint with copy of the original spam has headers in the body of
t
>> I was hoping that there would be someplace like abuse.net where we
>> could register our IPs and ASN, so non-NANOGers could know to
>> contact network-abuse@ when they think our network is attacking them?
That would be nice, wouldn't it? There's two reasons I don't do that.
One is that un
line crime, spam, etc., I can report that
pretty much all of the countries that matter realize there's a
problem, and a lot of them have passed or will pass laws whether we
like it or not. So it behooves us to engage them and help them pass
better rather than worse laws.
Regards,
John Lev
>> who is asleep at the wheel or worse. For instance, there appears to be a
>> '*.cm' wildcard in place, and several "flag of convenience" TLDs with a high
>
>cameroon outsourced their dns infrastructure management to someone
In this case, the someone is in Vancouver B.C., and Canada is most
de
is just plain wrong.
Also, ISPs in the United States are not common carriers. Even the
ISPs that are owned by phone companies (which are common carriers for
their phone service) are not common carriers.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Du
>So, although it should be noted that by and large ISPs have resisted
>being classified telecommunications common carriers as specifically
>defined in CA1934 they seem to be treated by the law, in practice, as
>common carriers in the common law sense ...
You're right, but the legal setup is flipp
>The fine people at the FBI are recommending people call their ISP for
>home computer technical support, even though most ISPs don't sell
>home computers, operating system software or application software.
No, the ISPs merely sell the channel through which the home computers
get infected with w
>Its not a technical problem (although engineers seem to like to think
>everything is), its a legal issue with Microsoft's lawyer and licenses.
I realize it's not a technical problem, although I suspect there are
some technical twiddles that could help, e.g., persuading Microsoft to
put the upda
>In general, creating a sandbox where a computer can only reach
>$UPDATE_SERVER is very, very difficult.
I believe it. Perhaps we could help Microsoft make it easier. The
sandbox doesn't have to include all their servers, just enough of
them to service the sandboxed users.
> And, as much as
>I've tried to get the attention of senderbase, which is claiming
>activity from my address space which is in fact either un-routed or
>within dynamic subscriber blocks that have outbound smtp filtering in
>effect. Unfortunately, senderbase refuses to acknowledge the problem in
>their data
>> Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted
>> eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could
>> never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the
>> business side.
My small telco-owned ISP NATs all of its DSL use
>But regardless of what it is called people usually know what they
>signed up for and when what has worked for the 5-6 years suddenly
>breaks ...
If a consumer ISP moved its customers from separate IPs to NAT, what
do you think would break? I'm the guy who was behind a double NAT for
several mont
>And when ISPs start using NAT for their customers, there will be more
>problems leading to more support calls.
You say this as though they don't do it now.
R's,
John
>I live in central / western New York state (think villages and farms).
You might want to start by talking to Lightlink in Ithaca, which has
been doing fixed wireless for years.
R's,
John
>+ I have those numbers I can beat the pavement and find out what people
>will pay for my service and then I will know based on my table if there
>is a snowball's chance in hell of this working.
Don't forget that you're competing against rural ILECs that drink
deeply from the well of USF funding.
501 - 600 of 702 matches
Mail list logo
