On 4/23/2010 03:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.04.23 03:35, Larry Sheldon wrote:
From my PC at home (Cox in Omaha) I can't even get a nameserver that
knows the site.
Larry... let me explain why. Although you might not understand, others
will, and you may remember this as something when
On 4/23/2010 04:49, Dave Hart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
- in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the authoritative
name servers
- both of these servers *only* have IPv6 addresses
Which seems a bit far afield from reality to
On 4/22/2010 10:04, John Lightfoot wrote:
That's Hedley.
-Original Message-
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com [mailto:bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:34 AM
To: Simon Perreault
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast
On 4/22/2010 10:17, Charles Mills wrote:
I think he was actually quoting the movie. They always called Harvey
Korman's character Hedy and he'd always correct them with That's
Hedley in a most disapproving tone.
Oh.
The only thing I watch less-of than TV is movies.
Saydid they ever make
On 4/20/2010 15:26, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, James Martin wrote:
What is the purpose for this besides resolving name-based reverse lookups?
Are there any definitive guides out there on how this works (besides the
ARIN site)?
It's for resolving address-based lookups.
On 4/18/2010 16:02, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, gordon b slater gordsla...@ieee.org wrote:
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:45 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Interesting; I see similar results for my address space. Two
addresses, one of which hasn't been attached to a
On 4/15/2010 15:07, Dennis Burgess wrote:
I have a customer that has an IP of 12.43.95.126. Currently, I can not
get any reverse on this IP.
What is the best way to find out the responciable servers for this?
Thanx in advance.
CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE,
On 4/15/2010 18:06, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The only response that works -- and even this is not guaranteed -- is
shunning.
Drop the message. Do not respond. Ever.
And for the love of Pete, when somebody (as I have) makes a mistake and
does his bidding, tell the miscreant VIA PRIVATE EMAIL
On 4/14/2010 09:35, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
On 14/04/2010 13:45, Dave Hart wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:20 UTC, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi su...@apnic.net wrote to SANOG:
014/8
223/8
Sunny,
Please be careful about how you write
On 4/12/2010 11:51, Erik L wrote:
Many thanks again to the large number of off-list responses. After
making human contact, the issue was very promptly resolved by Amazon
and a gentleman there has promised to look into the error on the
abuse form as well.
And people say talk of routing their
On 4/9/2010 23:23, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100409_oecd_reports_on_state_of_ipv6_deployment_for_policy_makers/
Nasty, degenerate, foot-dragging U.S. of A. does it again.
--
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have
On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
I would characterize the US as a first rate military and economic
power, but a third rate place to live.
What are the net emigration rates by country?
What are the net medical tourism rates by country?
What are the net disaster charity rates by
On 4/10/2010 09:19, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
Please, let's keep this off the NANOG list! I am already on a
politically oriented forum.
Got it. It is OK to make accusations, but not OK to challenge them.
My apologies
On 4/9/2010 16:22, joe mcguckin wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
After looking at who they elect, why does that surprise?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
not Information Service and thus came under
On 4/7/2010 13:39, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether
you're an
exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular
Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have
On 4/7/2010 17:45, Gregory Hicks wrote:
Actually, it doesn't matter how much you make per hour, the deciding
factor between exempt and non-exempt is how many (if any) people you
SUPERVISE. No supervision of others, then non-exempt.
I don't think that is correct. Professionals do not
On 4/5/2010 10:21, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
if the script determined an email was X bytes (100k?), the message body
was rewritten with:
Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol.
and the mail was left to continue on its path.
i
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same
160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and
the recent traffic under it.
The Internet (Note
On 4/4/2010 00:29, Randy Bush wrote:
UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD
funding programs run by people who do not write code
you're shocking lack of clue is showing
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes.
On 4/4/2010 05:00, IPv3.com wrote:
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - On the Internet ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - On the Internet ?
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD
On 4/4/2010 09:56, John Sage wrote:
The degree to which people subscribed to this list, apparently having
nothing better to do, will respond to a blatant troll is breathtaking.
Mama taught me to be polite and forgiving, it takes me a while to give
up on a persistent idiot--I want so badly to
On 4/4/2010 10:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang
On 4/4/2010 09:02, Larry Sheldon wrote:
This attribution line is wrong--I meant to leave only the two line below
it--for my purposes it did matter who said it.
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
The line above should have been edited out leaving only these two.
What if TCP is removed
I keep seeing mention here of the permanent MAC address.
Really? Permanent?
Been a long time, but it seems like one of the fun things about having
DECNet-phase IV on the network was its propensity for changing the MAC
address to be the DECNet address.
And it seems like the HP-UX machines
On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed.
In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps.
At this point, IPv4 has failed,
Failed? Really?!!?!
Not often you hear something that has changed just about
On 4/3/2010 12:31, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
That adoption is so low at this point really
On 4/2/2010 08:39, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:48:48 BST, Michael Dillon said:
So, what are you having your up-and-coming NOC staff read?
In an attempt to wean them off of unmanageable PERL scripts
There is not, and there never will be, a useful programming
On 4/2/2010 16:08, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Hmmm... it is 2pm on a Friday afternoon. I guess it's the appropriate
time for this thread.
*grabs popcorn and sits back to watch the fun*
While it is true that this is likely to be one of the less productive
windmill jousts.
I used to work for a
On 4/2/2010 19:25, Randy Bush wrote:
IPv6 as effectively reindroduced classful addressing.
but it's not gonna be a problem this time, right? after all,
32^h^h128^h^h^h64 bits is more than we will ever need, right?
Just like last time.
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the
On 3/31/2010 22:12, Dan White wrote:
On 31/03/10 22:14 -0300, jim deleskie wrote:
I'm a real life user, I know the difference and I could careless about
v6. most anything I want I is on v4 and will still be there long
after ( when ever it is) we run out of v4 addresses. If I'm on a
From
On 4/1/2010 09:13, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Most care not a whit how the wallpaper does it, they just want when the
plug a lamp into it to get light. A toaster, warmed bread. A computer,
to be able to exchange email, read the news, watch pornography, or play
games.
Kindasorta related:
http
On 3/31/2010 11:50, kris foster wrote:
Everyone- this conversation should take place at
nanog-futu...@nanog.org. That list is for meta-discussions like
this.
The irony is overwhelming.
On 3/31/2010 19:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 01/04/2010 00:40, Michael Dillon wrote:
In fact, consumer demand for IPv6 is close to 100%.
Michael, I think you fat-fingered 0%.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the real world here.
I wondered about that. I would have guess that nearly
On 3/30/2010 04:34, Jim Mercer wrote:
he is invading other lists as well, looks like he is trying to become a
net.kook.
EXPN 'become'
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM
On 3/30/2010 08:09, Stephen Tandy wrote:
Sent from my Windows® phone.
-Original Message-
From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org
Sent: 30 March 2010 13:00
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 142
Send NANOG mailing list
On 3/30/2010 22:35, Steve Bertrand wrote:
The feedback that I've received off-list has led me to believe that I
just need to scratch the title, and have my name and number.
Who cares what I do. Those who want to call/email me will have a purpose
for doing so anyway ;)
Post University I
On 3/30/2010 22:42, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
from commonly used webmail providers, and add further RHS filters as
additional providers are identified
On 3/30/2010 22:44, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite
serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who
work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify'
themselves.
When I
For some reason I am getting a ton of DNR spam from blackberry.net
with Subject: lines that imply that somebody here is the culprit.
(Hence this message here.)
I am blacklisting blackberry.net in an effort to reduce the spam load
here.
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner
On 3/28/2010 12:00, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:51:51 CDT, Larry Sheldon said:
For some reason I am getting a ton of DNR spam from blackberry.net
with Subject: lines that imply that somebody here is the culprit.
(Hence this message here.)
I figured it was just
On 3/22/2010 14:03, Mark Keymer wrote:
Hi,
If at all possible can a AOL Postmaster please get a hold of me. I have
a client that co-lo's with use and we do the support for them and we
need some help on getting mail to be delivering again to AOL.
Didn't I read that all of the AOL Postmasters
On 3/19/2010 08:44, William Pitcock wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 08:31 -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
An ongoing area of work is to build better closed,
trusted communities without leaks.
Have you ever considered that public transparency might not be a bad
thing? This seems to be the plight
On 3/18/2010 10:07, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/18/2010 09:56, Dennis Dayman wrote:
have a friend who has 21 floors of a building in DFW, multiple
switches, etc and they started to have latency issues this weekend
where half if not all packet are being dropped to folder shares,
printers, etc
On 3/18/2010 11:00, Brandon Kim wrote:
That was pretty quick.
But what do you mean by spewing stuff? It would help the rest of us
understand for possible future issues we may run into ourselves.
Good question. Without thinking about it I saw in my mind's eye a
situation we used to
On 3/18/2010 11:22, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
this, and/or provide evidence to my client?
See related traffic on this list, for openers.
--
Democracy: Three
On 3/18/2010 09:56, Dennis Dayman wrote:
have a friend who has 21 floors of a building in DFW, multiple
switches, etc and they started to have latency issues this weekend
where half if not all packet are being dropped to folder shares,
printers, etc. Suggestions on how they can troubleshoot
On 3/18/2010 10:07, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/18/2010 09:56, Dennis Dayman wrote:
have a friend who has 21 floors of a building in DFW, multiple
switches, etc and they started to have latency issues this weekend
where half if not all packet are being dropped to folder shares,
printers, etc
On 3/18/2010 12:06, Dan White wrote:
On 18/03/10 11:48 -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/18/2010 10:07, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/18/2010 09:56, Dennis Dayman wrote:
have a friend who has 21 floors of a building in DFW, multiple
switches, etc and they started to have latency issues
On 3/18/2010 12:12, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/18/2010 12:06, Dan White wrote:
[previous comments and header display]
That _is_ interesting!
I wonder if there is a way to get to those headers from Thunderbird.
Not much else works and I didn't even think to try.
My bad.
It does work
On 3/18/2010 14:30, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 3/18/10 2:35 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be
updating their systems and documentation to no longer use 1.2.3.4 ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com
I know
[bagged and tagged]
Yes the spam is annoying.
It is annoying that the moderators have let go on a lot longer than they
have some operational discussions.
But what is REALLY annoying is the people who quote the crap around my
filters after I have had to take local action to staunch the flow.
On 3/16/2010 20:42, p8x wrote:
I have been getting them fine...
On 17/03/2010 9:23 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
Haven't gotten a message through the NANOG mailing list for a week or so
now. Seeing if this works.
Well that is certainly helpful.
He is not.
--
Democracy: Three wolves
On 3/12/2010 08:43, Joe Greco wrote:
As such, the only real value I see the FCC tool offering is the potential
for visibility into things such as DSL speed/distance limitations, but in
order for that to be meaningful, you'd have to get a lot of people to run
the test.
Which brings us back
On 3/12/2010 13:22, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- t...@americafree.tv wrote: From: Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv
This might be useful to some. Article :
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
site
On 3/10/2010 9:40 PM, Daniel wrote:
Did anyone notice any issues with Qwest DNS the past hour or two? We've had
users with intermittent issues and the weird thing is while they can't
resolve certain domains within Qwest's network I can query the same DNS
servers from outside of Qwest's network
On 3/4/2010 1:16 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
If I leave all boxes checked to send mail/notices/app requests to
everyone in my list, or if I give FB my gmail password to pull all my
contacts and send them an invite, its pure @ my request, sure FB is
happy I do it, but it is no way spam. Its like
On 3/4/2010 1:37 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
I'm not going to both on this thread anymore.. waste of time. Sorry
for the bulk mail/spam generated by my replies to nanog.
I'll stop feeding the trolls now.
Nice recovery attempt for a lost cause.
--
Government big enough to supply everything you
On 3/4/2010 2:35 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
When there are 100 million facebook organizations, perhaps your
comparison will be appropriate. But even then, only if your friends
participate in all 100 million. Getting the occasional facebook,
linkedin, and plaxo invitation from your friends is
On 3/4/2010 3:14 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:35:47 EST, Dean Anderson said:
lots of whining about it's not a DDoS/spam elided.
My To: list:
To: jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Your To: list:
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu, Shon Elliott
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
And that is only the
On 3/1/2010 12:53 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600
Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking
On 2/27/2010 1:20 AM, chaim.rie...@gmail.com wrote:
Gettingreports of loss of connectivity to parts of chile
They had an 8.5 a short while ago.
At that magnitude, I don't know how significant .3 is, but from the USGS:
== PRELIMINARY EARTHQUAKE REPORT ==
***This event
On 2/27/2010 6:47 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/27/2010 1:20 AM, chaim.rie...@gmail.com wrote:
Gettingreports of loss of connectivity to parts of chile
They had an 8.5 a short while ago.
At that magnitude, I don't know how significant .3 is, but from the USGS
Al Gore was fake, the Chilean Earthquakes are real.
If you have interests near the Pacific Ocean, read up on the Tsunami
warnings for the area of your interest.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9E4DMIG0show_article=1
--
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough
On 2/27/2010 12:52 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kauto Huopio wrote:
On 2/27/10 8:08 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Tsunami evacuation zone areas are being advised to evacuate. But of
course the online maps are actually offline today for some reason.
I'd guess HI civil
On 2/26/2010 12:29 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 2/26/10 11:20 AM, Wade Peacock wrote:
I found a while ago in /var/log/secure that for an invalid ssh login
attempt the ssh Bye Bye line is in the future. I have searched the web
and can not find a reason for the future time in the log.
Here is a
On 2/22/2010 11:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
When Somebody calls one of my portable telephone numbers, they don't
get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get
call progress tones.
You are confusing what is presented
On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they
can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives
get so excited about minor, trivial erosions of
On 2/23/2010 4:43 AM, Cian Brennan wrote:
As has been pointed out several times, they can easily be pretty close. Simply
force them to send using the outgoing server of their new ISP, but allow them
to still access their mailbox (which is really the only important bit the ISP
hosts) over
On 2/23/2010 9:26 AM, Anton Kapela wrote:
Web browser embedded flash player:
http://nanog.iristransport.net/nanog48/
VLC direct link:
http://204.29.15.165:10001
Enjoy,
-Tk
Heh. This message may be a scam and Thunderbird thinks this message
is a scam. The links in the
On 2/23/2010 10:54 AM, John Sage wrote:
Unquote
I'd want to trade my email address for one that doesn't trigger empty
responses.
Or get me banned.
But he's right, we should take the discussion of operational issues
somewhere else.
--
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big
On 2/22/2010 4:09 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 02/22/2010 12:11 AM, Tarig Y. Adam wrote:
Hi
Messages we send from our mail sever always received at SPAM box in many
Public Mail servers like hotmail, yahoo, and gmail. We made a revers dns
lookup, and there is no spamming from our
On 2/22/2010 10:24 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, James Jones wrote:
Why does this seem like a really bad idea?
While I think the principal is noble there are operational problems:
I dare say.
I own example. I fire George for a long list of foul deeds. He goes to
work
A thing being missed here is this:
A telephone number does not have an obvious affinity with personal
intellectual-property-like information. (402 332- is not obviously
a Northwest Bell-USWest-Quest telephone number, but at least two of them
are now served by Cox. A person using a 917
On 2/22/2010 11:19 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:30:53 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
Unfortunately the links cited are in Hebrew so I'm only going on Gadi's
report here.
Why is that relevant?
For the same reason that if I cited a link that lead to a page
On 2/22/2010 11:22 AM, Mustafa Golam - wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.netwrote:
An email address that ends in example.com irrevocably ties the address
user to the company Example and may in fact be affirmatively harmful
beyond the technical
On 2/22/2010 11:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-02-22, at 10:09, Gadi Evron wrote:
The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's
committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full
legislation process of the Israeli parliament.
While many users own a free
On 2/22/2010 11:29 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Am I missing something? All the ISP has to do is to provision a pop3
/ imap / webmail mailbox for that user and keep it around.
And provide storage, support, .., mail-bomb cleanup.
Whose TOS applies?
--
Government big enough to supply
On 2/22/2010 12:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
That said, what does occur to me is what happens when we've closed
someone's account for email abuse (e.g., a spammer)?
I've been thinking about that issue--spammer drop-boxes.
But we are not supposed to talk about spammers here so I was going to
take
On 2/22/2010 12:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:09 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
You don't note when you are taking somebody's word when they write in
English.
Actually, we do.
So tell me Larry - if I cited a Latvian web page, and gave a summary, would
you
On 2/22/2010 1:16 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
s...@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email
equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because
On 2/22/2010 1:40 PM, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 2/22/2010 12:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Is it your position that, as a vendor of antispam services, nobody
else should offer their services for a fee?
That would be strange indeed
Actually I can sympathize with Barracuda on this one:
On 2/22/2010 10:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article fddc4e5f9aeda526d68b236708b0d...@yyc.orthanc.ca you write:
s...@cs.columbia.edu:
I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the
email equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.
We already have SMTP's
On 2/21/2010 12:32 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
entire? network) that I mentioned.
Can you access MAPS without a
On 2/20/2010 9:06 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:51:33 EST, Daniel Senie said:
Instead of saying well, it's obvious to everyone, do something about it.
*brrring... bring...brrriiing...*
Cluephone. It's for you.
5321 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. J.
On 2/20/2010 10:36 AM, William Herrin wrote:
They didn't exactly fix it. What they did is reinforce the importance
of generating a bounce message by keeping the existing must language
from 2821 but adding:
A server MAY attempt to verify the return path before using its
address for delivery
On 2/20/2010 11:41 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
We don't expose our selves with finger and .plan and a number of other
things that work in a world of friends and neighbors--the world has changed
It's changed all right. Finger is now called IM presence, and .plan is
called Facebook.
The
On 2/20/2010 11:53 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So we've looked at it from 2 different aspects, and in both cases, the
RFC says you shouldn't be bouncing spam to where it came from.
Small nit, which is germane to the whole discussion; ...the RFC says
you shouldn't be bouncing spam to
On 2/20/2010 4:57 PM, James Hess wrote:
For the purpose of the following two paragraphs, pretend for the moment
that you operate a business selling stuff via an email address
sa...@example.com. For dramatic effect, assume your children will
starve if you are not able to sell anything.
Further,
On 2/20/2010 6:10 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Larry Sheldon wrote:
There is no way in the current universe to know where the item came from
by inspecting it. You can only tell where you got it from...and if you
can't reject it while you know that, you must discard it.
s/mime detached
On 2/19/2010 7:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
Barracuda's engineers apparently think
that using SPF stops backscatter -- and it most emphatically does not.
Reject good, bounce baaad. [1]
Whine all you want about
[bagged and tagged for hazmat disposal]
Why is that everybody who is compelled to comment on how useless (or
worse) a posting is is also compelled to quote the garbage at great length?
--
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have.
Remember:
On 2/18/2010 2:36 PM, Crist Clark wrote:
*Definition: non-commercial use is use for any purpose other than as
part or all of a product or service that is resold, or for use of which
a fee is charged. For example, using our DNSBLs in a commercial spam
filtering appliance that is then sold to
Any of the Austin contingent near the IRS office?
Everybody OK?
--
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have.
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
On 2/15/2010 7:00 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to
contact the sender and delete the email.
Done. I also erased the hard disk and reinstalled the OS.
Given that many Network Operator managers require that that crap be
appended to
On 2/15/2010 1:19 PM, JC Dill wrote:
I don't see the point you are trying to make in this discussion.
I can see that. I don't have a clue bat big enough for the task.
Are
you saying
Troll skat.
I'm out.
--
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take
On 2/14/2010 11:42 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i am often on funky networks in funky places. e.g. the wireless in
changi really sucked friday night. if i ssh tunneled, it would multiply
the
I thought I understood but from recent contexts here it is clear that I
do not.
I thought a resolver was code in your local machine that provide
hostname (FQDN?), given address; or address, given host name (with
assists to build FQDN).
And I thought a server was a separate program, might be on
On 2/14/2010 6:10 PM, Rob Austein wrote:
At Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:02:48 -0600, Laurence F Sheldon, Jr wrote:
I thought I understood but from recent contexts here it is clear that I
do not.
I thought a resolver was code in your local machine that provide
hostname (FQDN?), given address; or
401 - 500 of 532 matches
Mail list logo
