Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
+2 so far here.. Same email, same guy, different netblocks. Spamming
for IP's to spam with?
$5k payable in faked viagra, no doubt.
Mike
On 07/26/2010 01:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back
On 10/04/2010 09:54 AM, John Adams wrote:
Without proper SPF records your mail stands little chance of making it
through some of the larger providers, like gmail, if you are sending
in any high volume. You should be using SPF, DK, and DKIM signing.
There should really be no reason to sign with
On 10/04/2010 10:05 AM, John Adams wrote:
We've seen percentage gains when signing with DK, and we carefully
monitor our mail acceptance percentages with ReturnPath. It's around
4-6%. I'd like to stop using it, but some people still check DK.
Sigh. I was hoping not to hear that. It's been
On 12/03/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/3/2010 4:09 PM, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this
space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped
On 12/03/2010 03:22 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm trying to get my sister's MythTV DVR to send her a daily email with its
recording schedule. Earthlink is apparently blocking the email because it's
coming from a dynamic address -- even though that address *is an Earthlink
cablemodem*.
Is there
On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Andrew
Yep.
Mike
Somebody obviously backed out the change because it's
back up again. Mashable has a blurb on it.
Mike
On 12/16/2010 01:39 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
Yep...Seeing serious issues from our office here at AS11404, we are peered
directly and all looks good at the IP layer but all of us who
On 02/09/2011 12:08 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 2:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5
years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase
On 03/01/2011 05:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William Pitcockneno...@systeminplace.net
That is the same market Vonage is now targeting in the US, basically.
National calling in the US is basically bundled with most calling plans
now. I'm not
On 03/01/2011 08:01 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Bret Palssonb...@getjive.com
VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same
RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something?
Well, you try to hold a conversation with
On 03/01/2011 07:51 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its
not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that
over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't
get the benefit of prioritization in the
On 03/02/2011 06:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com
Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP
packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP
signalling and interaction with the telephony
On 03/01/2011 11:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It's worked out great for me in a number of places. OTOH, it was kind
of dicey even without the torrents from other places.
I found that bandwidth and jitter were the bigger issues than other
applications I was sharing the link with.
I even managed to
Is it too soon to start to compare and contrast how voip
held up vs. tdm? Back in the old days circa mid to late
90's, there was a lot of hand wringing about whether
voip would be up to the task of dealing with a massive
emergency. Well, we certainly have one now in Japan
on almost every front
seems that ipv4 addresses are mandatory with paypal with
a stingy 15 char limit so you can't even sneak a v6 address in.
we've got a long way to go.
https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-contentcontent_ID=developer/e_howto_api_nvp_r_DoDirectPayment
Gavin Pearce wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the height, it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsunami's rarely become
On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
implications (net part, host part.)
A host name is a string of bits of varying length. But it's still just
ones and zeros, an
On 11/26/2012 03:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How much
of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application
development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6
capabilities are to their
On 11/26/2012 04:24 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating
systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting
v6 support up that I can think
On 11/26/2012 04:38 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and
foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from
their ISP's.
It's hugely problematic
On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong?
Yes, it is the app's fault.
They are either doing IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets
The IPv4 literal issues is when they do wget
On 11/27/2012 12:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 50b512b6.1010...@mtcc.com, mike writes:
On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programme
rs totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done.
On 11/27/2012 01:07 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-11-27 20:21, mike wrote:
This is a point that is probably more significant than is
appreciated. If the app, IT, and networking ecosystem don't even have
access to ipv6 to play around with, you can be guaranteed that they
are going to be
On 11/27/2012 03:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I would think that a developer of corporate network-based applications that is
worth his salt would be one of the people pushing the IT/Neteng group to give
him the tools to do his job. If he waits until they are implementing IPv6 on
corporate
On 11/27/2012 09:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20121128041816.gf1...@dyn.com, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:41:13AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
If they are writing network based code a tunnel broker should not
be a issue. Tunnel brokers are not that hard to use.
On 11/28/2012 09:00 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And still, if you as a proper engineer where not able to test/add IPv6
code in the last 10++ years, then you did something very very wrong in
your job, the least of which is to file a ticket for IPv6 support in the
ticket tracking system so that one
On 11/28/2012 10:30 AM, david peahi wrote:
On the practical side: Have all programmers created a 128 bit field to
store the IPv6 address, where IPv4 programs use a 32 bit field to store the
IP address? This would seem to be similar to the year 2000 case where
almost all programs required
On 11/28/2012 09:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-11-28 18:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's very presumptuous for you to tell me what my development/test
priorities ought to be, and I can tell you for absolute certain that any
such badgering will be met with rolled eyes and quick dismissal
On 11/29/2012 10:36 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Got some bad data here. Let me help.
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 29, 2012 8:22 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Phone apps, by and large, are designed by people in homes or
small companies. They do not have v6
On 12/01/2012 11:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
ps. I work for a division of my employer that does not yet have IPv6 support in
its rather popular consumer software product. Demand for IPv6 from our rather
large customer base is, at present, essentially nonexistent, and other things
would be way
Matthew Newton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:42:46PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 13/12/2012 22:54, Jason Castonguay wrote:
Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January.
You've just given 3 weeks notice for a component change in one of the few
critical part of
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet
connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet
connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other
cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging
On 12/20/2012 10:28 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment.
None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA
does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially
delicate and easy
On 12/20/2012 11:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Also, RJ45 is around the minimum size where you can hand-terminate a
cable. How would you go about quickly making a 36.5 foot 8 conductor
cable with, say, micro USB ends?
You're assuming that that's a universal requirement. Most people
in retail
On 12/20/2012 12:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I wonder if it would be worth asking the 802.3 committee look at defining a single-pair ethernet standard that would interoperate with a normal 4-pair switch. So, you'd have two conductors into some kind of 2P2C micro-RJ connector
On 12/21/2012 04:08 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
Good luck with that! :-) Referring back to the original question and the reference to Raspberry Pi... The latest HDMI has Ethernet capability and the connector is already on the Pi, so there's a possible (future) solution that would work for all manner
On 12/21/2012 09:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we
have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP?
The need for isochronous transmission and more bandwidth.
That's why G*d invented
On 12/21/2012 12:00 PM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 21 December 2012 18:22, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for
different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have
to worry about somebody plugging the Internet
On 01/02/2013 09:14 PM, Damian Menscher wrote:
Back on topic: encryption without knowing who you're talking to is worse
than useless (hence no self-signed certs which provide a false sense of
security),
In fact, it's very useful -- what do you think the initial diffie-hellman
exchanges are
On 01/10/2013 07:02 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I certainly want to use something more modern, having run Xmodem to load images
into devices or net-booted systems with very large images in the past…
I've seen all sorts of
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
However, as part of a defense in depth strategy, it can still make
sense.
Brother, you're preaching to the choir. I've argued for defense in depth
for longer than I can remember. Still am.
But defenses have
On 01/30/2013 01:51 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:43 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
As a product of having a motorola sb6121 and a netgear wndr3700 both of which I
bought at frys I have ipv6 in my house with dhcp pd curtesy of commcast. If it
was any simpler
O oracle of nanog: unlike things like rogue processes eating tons of CPU,
it seems to me that network monitoring is essentially a black art for the
average schmuck home network operator (of which I count myself). That
is: if the network is slow, it's really hard to tell why that might be and
who
On 02/12/2013 02:07 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Someone created an application for uverse users that goes into the gateway and pulls relevant
information. The information (link retrain, for example) is then color coded for caution and
out of range. The application is called up real time, not
On 02/12/2013 04:46 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
Large buffers have broken the average home internet. I can't tell you how
many people are astonished when I say one of your family members
downloading a huge Microsoft ISO image (via TCP or other congestion-aware
algorithm) shouldn't even be noticed by
On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding
back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Verizon Wireline is running
dual stack for at least its FIOS customers, and also deploying CGN, and being
pretty up
On 04/24/2013 05:34 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
wrote:
On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding
back there. To pick on one that is fairly public
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
sites?
One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
I suppose
On 04/25/2013 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just
On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
At some level, I wonder how much the feedback loop of providers
won't deploy ipv6 because everybody says they won't deploy ipv6
has caused this self-fulfilling prophecy :/
It's a definite issue. The bigger issue is the financial incentives are all in
On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only
real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in.
One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing
with CGN
Peter Dambier wrote:
Apropos, I remember a frenchman who fed his personal computer 288 Volts DC.
Gives a whole new meaning to French Fries :)
Mike, sorry
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP
port' in my previous comment ;-)
Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too,
clueless expands to fill any
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Given that you said AHBL requires two weeks to remove good IP addresses
unless there is an established contact, I'll be sure never to use said
list. Suppose my business partner gets listed? Am I to ruin our
relationship for two weeks because you are busy or don't
On 09/02/2009 10:33 AM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bushra...@psg.com wrote:
[] the internet is a wonderful
demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
On 09/02/2009 11:20 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Long before we has widespread commercial internet, we still had to have the
backup plan for when the single highly fault tollerant entitity on which we
were dependant on for a particular service went out.
Sometimes, that plan is wait for
On 10/05/2009 04:41 PM, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
as a residential customer, I will be provided a /64, which means each
individual on Earth
On 10/05/2009 04:59 PM, David Andersen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about running
out
On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
On 10/08/2009 04:54 PM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Hi,
it seems, that hotmail send a bare LF in the added signature
(and violates RFC).
qmail drops the connection afterwards:
451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
no helpfull response from hotmail:
On 12/07/2009 09:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CN
N)
With 24 million
On 12/08/2009 01:21 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
(Aside: my local library blocks everything but 80 and 443 outbound. I complained to the director; he cited
security. I tried explaining that I knew something about Internet security; he told me that the
firm that had installed the system had done
On 12/10/2009 07:54 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
In a nutshell, if you're not clearly indicating mail sources as mail
sources, don't expect great deliverability. If you're running a Web
hosting shop and don't have rate-limited outbound smarthosts, expect all
your clients' mail to be suspected of
On 12/10/2009 08:38 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message4b211da6.9000...@mtcc.com, Michael Thomas writes:
To Crocker's point though: if IETF came up with a way to publish your network's
dynamic space (assuming that's The Problem!), would operators do that? Or is
this another case where the energy
On 12/10/2009 09:06 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-12-10, at 16:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 12/10/2009 08:38 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
The way to do this is to put other data in the ip6.arpa/in-addr.arpa and
stop trying to infer things from the PTR records.
Sigh. What is the this to which
William Allen Simpson wrote:
In accord with the recent thread, facebook spying on us?
We should also worry about other spying on us. Without
some sort of rudimentary security, all that personally
identifiable information is exposed on our ISP networks,
over WiFi, etc.
Facebook claims to be
William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 10/2/11 12:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'm not sure why lack of TLS is considered to be problem with Facebook.
The man in the middle is the other side of the connection, tls or
otherwise.
Jason Leschnik wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:27 AM, William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/11 12:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'm not sure why lack of TLS is considered to be problem with
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/30/2011 8:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
So you support filtering end-user outbound SMTP sessions as this is a
means to prevent misuse of the Commons*. Correct?
If it is acceptable to have the receiving SMTP server at one end of a
connection do filtering -- and it
What the heck...
I've been working on a project for the last three years at home and
mostly by myself. It has been one of the more productive times of my
life codingwise precisely because I am at home and can juggle life's
responsibilities as needed all without really having one. When you go
On 12/06/2011 05:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:49:29 PST, andrew.wallace said:
A trojan can be used for good if in the right hands as a remote access tool for
business use.
Best troll line since n3td3v got banned from full-disclosure. Well played,
I've been
On 12/22/2011 10:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote:
This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
didn't use (It's a service, and I
On 12/22/2011 11:07 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote:
At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
or you pay
On 01/03/2012 05:09 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
A side issue is the people who use the same password at fuzzykittens.com as they do at bankofamerica.com. Of course fuzzykittens doesn't need high security for their password management and storage. After all, what's worth stealing at fuzzykittens? All
On 01/21/2012 11:38 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using cloud storage for their documentation these
days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay) that Google has an entire service aimed at small
governments (county and municipal mostly) in Google Docs for just
On 01/21/2012 03:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/21/12 11:38 , George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using cloud storage for their
documentation these days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay)
that Google has an entire service aimed at small governments (county
and
On 01/21/2012 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Sure, but balance that with podunk.usa's possibly incompetent IT staff?
It costs a lot of money to run a state of the art shop, but only
incrementally more as you add more and more instances of essentially
identical shops. I guess I have more trust
On 02/27/2012 06:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
programming is not being able to write a hundred lines of unreadable
perl.
a real programmer can be productive in networking tools in a matter of a
month or two. i have seen it multiple times.
a networker can become a useful real progammer in a year
On 03/01/2012 06:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
The simpler approach and perfectly viable without mucking
up what is already implemented and working:
Don't keep returns from GAI/GNI around longer than it takes
to cycle through
On 03/01/2012 07:22 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
It's deeper than just that, though. The whole paradigm is messy, from
the point of view of someone who just wants to get stuff done. The
examples are (almost?) all fatally flawed. The code that actually gets
at least some of it right ends up being too
On 03/01/2012 08:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Moving it across the kernel boundary solves nothing
Actually, it does. Right now, applications effectively cache the address in
their data space, requiring the application developer to go to quite a bit of
work to deal with the address changing
On 03/01/2012 08:58 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 06:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The even simpler approach: create an AF_NAME with a sockaddr struct
that contains a hostname instead of an IPvX address. Then let
On 03/05/2012 03:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, the bigger problem (from my experience-driven POV) is that it is not
so intuitively obvious that developing a network-based product using a team
consisting entirely of developers who view the network as an unnecessarily
complicated serial
On 03/12/2012 02:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever I've built code to check someone's email address on a form, I always just looked for the following: 1. matches ^[^@]+@[A-Za-z0-0\-\.]+[A-Za-z]$ 2. The component to the right of the @ sign returns at least one A, , or MX record. If it passed
On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Eric Wielingewiel...@nyigc.com
Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
prevents other companies from providing service by leasing
On 03/21/2012 12:28 PM, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Eric Wielingewiel...@nyigc.com
Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
locations EVERY TIME VZ
On 03/28/2012 09:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad
wrote:
An interesting assertion. I haven't looked at how end-user networks are built
recently. I had assumed there continue to be customer aggregation points
within ISP
On 03/28/2012 12:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
None of the routers are trusted if your perspective is right.
It's easy to find a path like:
Tier 1 ISP - Regional ISP - Local Provider - Subscriber - User
Techologically it may look like:
Tier 1 T640 core network with 10GE handoff
Regional
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day
On 05/31/2012 05:43 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
other TLD's.
Countries would
On 05/31/2012 06:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
not necessarily. It can be done with a laptop that does dig and sends email
to the place.
What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the woodwork when they
start trying to enforce their provisions. What? I have already printed my
Linkedin has a blog post that ends with this sage advice:
* Make sure you update your password on LinkedIn (and any site that you visit
on the Web) at least once every few months.
I have accounts at probably 100's of sites. Am I to understand that I am
supposed to remember
each one of them
On 06/08/2012 12:56 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Use a password safe. Simple. Most of them even include secure password
generators. That way you only have one password to remember stored in a
location you have control over (and is encrypted), and you get to adopt secure
practices with websites.
On 06/08/2012 01:24 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/08/2012 10:22 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 06/08/2012 12:56 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Use a password safe. Simple. Most of them even include secure password
generators. That way you only have one password to remember stored in a
location you
On 06/08/2012 01:24 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Oh come on.. now you're just being ridiculous, even bordering on childish.
LinkedIn are offering solid advice, routed in safe practices. If you don't
want to do it that's your problem. Stop bitching just because security is hard.
PS: when security
On 06/08/2012 01:35 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2012-06-08, at 1:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Does your password safe know how to change the password on each
website every several months?
Yes.
I run a website. If it can change it on mine, I'd like to understand
how it manages to do
On 06/08/2012 01:41 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
PS: when security is hard, people simply don't do it. Blaming the victim
of poor engineering that leads people to not be able to perform best
practices is not the answer.
Passwords suck, but they are the best that we have at the moment in terms of
On 06/08/2012 02:01 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2012-06-08, at 1:41 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I run a website. If it can change it on mine, I'd like to understand
how it manages to do that.
I log in to your website, change my password, and the software picks up that
I've changed
1 - 100 of 794 matches
Mail list logo
