If it's not 'standard' weird stuff in Sunnyvale (area) also has a big selection
of pre-loved kits..
Michelle
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad
On 05 Jul 2013, at 22:16, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Frys on Kifer have them as does Halted Specialties at Lawrence
Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
administrator
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster
Paul Graydon wrote:
It's pretty much customer service 101 to ensure that you keep your
communications as neutral and polite as possible, regardless of how
frustrated or vilified you feel by the person you're supporting, and
regardless of how tired you are of accusatory tickets. Being snarky
Ken Chase wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to adopt standards that are part of proposed RFC's
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
mailto:matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
[snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list
William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:46 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And you might want to fix it, since your users will never get a bounce notice
from any RFC-compliant mailer - even if they *wanted* to know that their mail
wasn't delivered. is the RFC-standard way to
William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration
process is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
As I recall it, you can manually
Landon Stewart wrote:
On 28 July 2011 14:16, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due
to the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda
thinks its SPAM .. just to darn funny .. I have
deles...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong on this,
You are I'm afraid.
and I'm not a mailadmin anywhere nor have I been or pretended to have been in
the past. But I'm pretty sure FB only sends you mail based on the prefrences
you choose, and I know this is the answer you where given so
Jon Lewis wrote:
The original question, what do you do (or have you done) when DNSBL-X
approaches you saying that your network is hitting their public NS's
too hard and wants you to pay for continued access? is something I'd
like to see some answers to. Despite the Subject:, Spamhaus is
Paul Vixie wrote:
so, a uucp-only site should have upgraded to real smtp by now, and by not
doing it they and their internet gateway are a joint menace to society?
that seems overly harsh. there was a time (1986 or so?) when most of the
MX RR's in DNS were smtp gateways for uucp-connected
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it?
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
Scott Howard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us 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
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
And I want to know how they figured out we had a Barracuda.
It's not that hard, much of the time -- they tend to make
themselves visible via their poor behavior.
Is there some very specific poor
Bjørn Mork wrote:
Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net writes:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
And I want to know how they figured out we had a Barracuda.
It's not that hard, much of the time -- they tend to make
Laczo, Louis wrote:
Folks,
I'm looking for comments / suggestions / opinions from any providers that
have been contacted by spamhaus about excessive queries originating from
their DNS resolvers, typically, as a proxy for customers. I know that certain
large DNS providers (i.e. google and
Dean Anderson wrote:
[Damn. spit out my coffee on keyboard.]
Levine and Vixie are partners in Whitehat. Whitehat is a commercial bulk
mailer that offers listwashing services (removing spam-traps). MAPS
employees were involved in listwashing. MAPS, Spamhaus, SORBS do not
block Whitehat,
Crist Clark wrote:
On 2/18/2010 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Crist Clark wrote:
We received such a message from a Spamhaus Datafeed reseller
and eventually had our DNS servers blocked. What angered me was
that I analyzed our usage, and we were well
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Dean e-mails lots of people directly and CC's the list with his .. uh ..
missives. The list members do not see it, just the people individual on the
To or CC lines see it.
When you reply to the list, /then/ people on the list see it.
I am replying to the list
Crist Clark wrote:
We do not fit into that. We are not selling an appliance or service
to others (the 'Cuda is for our internal corporate email only, not
customers). If we were still using my home-built SpamAssassin system,
it'd be OK to use Spamhaus. Now that we've purchased an appliance
and
I see constant issues where I can't resolve PTR's in Europe. I see no
reason for this except that a bunch of servers are either dropping my
packets or are permanently f**ked... any other clues gratefully accepted.
miche...@enigma:~/dultools$ dig +trace -x 213.219.184.23
; DiG 9.3.3 +trace -x
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:22:17AM +0100,
Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote
a message of 185 lines which said:
213.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS NS-PRI.RIPE.NET.
213.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS NS3.NIC.FR.
213
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:22:17AM +0100,
Michelle Sullivan miche...@sorbs.net wrote
a message of 185 lines which said:
213.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS NS-PRI.RIPE.NET.
213.in-addr.arpa. 86400
Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
0n Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
miche...@enigma:~$ dig +trace +bufsize=512 -x 81.255.164.225
miche...@enigma:~$ dig +bufsize=4096 -x 81.255.164.225 @NS3.NIC.FR
Curious, why did you modify
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:40:31PM +0100,
Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote
a message of 298 lines which said:
miche...@enigma:~$ dig +bufsize=4096 -x 81.255.164.225 @NS3.NIC.FR
Bad test: the response is too small to exercice real size
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 87iq9ys512@mid.deneb.enyo.de, Florian Weimer writes:
* Stephane Bortzmeyer:
It is highly improbable that all these name servers are unreachable
from you. Therefore, I suspect that *content* is the issue. RIPE-NCC
zones are signed with DNSSEC. Are
telmn...@757.org wrote:
Did SORBS really cause you that much pain?
Yes. We purchased colo space for some systems that didn't need high
class of service (mostly development systems.) The IP space in a
former lifetime was a dialup pool for analog modems.
We of course changed the reverse DNS
Ken Chase wrote:
Anyone got some pointers on how to get off SORBS' Dynamic IP lists?
We've followed their RFC proposed static reverse DNS assignment naming and all
elements of their FAQ.
We are not spammers. The /24 in question isnt listed on any RBLs except SORBS
DUL.
We've submitted
Ronald Cotoni wrote:
At the same time, I never hear this about spamhaus or outblaze. Go
figure :( Maybe your system is too confusing and you might want to
take a survey and revamp it to something a bit more functional.
I have never heard it about Outblaze, but I have heard at least we
Ken Chase wrote:
Fair enough, but it wasnt just me.
I have the customer who submitted his own tickets as well, as well as NAC.net
who has admins (an email admin, actually), who seems to know his way around RBLs
and the current state/reputation/happenings in the spam/RBL/mail world.
Customer
Leo Bicknell wrote:
So, let me see if I got this right:
1) Network reports 1.2.3.0/24 has no dynamic IP addresses in it.
Networks don't report anything, people do, and in the majority of cases
not the network owner (where network owner = person listed in the RIR as
the POC)
2) SORBS
Logan Vig wrote:
Here are some tickets to review:
205929
206524
207964
208986
and for the /24's which finally resulted in the /18 being delisted:
208996-209062
Well from the initial look you kept submitting new tickets and the SORBS
staff kept merging them into the latest ticket as
Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Very true. At my old place of employment a DUHL listed an ip since
before my previous company existed. For some reason, when we obtained
it, they still listed it. Sounds like a bug in the DUHL bot to me.
Also the standard makes a lot of sense. You may be on Trend Micros
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
Two sides of an SP's coin: I want to maximize my e-mail servers'
deliverability, so I make sure those have appropriately named PTRs
and make
sure that outbound messages aren't spammy; I also want to restrict
The point he was
Please reply to the list, not me and the list!
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
thing is that it's illegal to maintain a database with personal details
which ip addresses according to various german courts are (don't ask..
mmk? ;) ofcourse we all know ip addresses identify nodes on a network, not
Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Thank you, I wasn't aware, and it will be corrected (doesn't say
3-5hours still so I'd love to find that one).
There is this text I see, which seems to disagree with the robot's
behavior in my case (from
Niels Bakker wrote:
* matt...@sorbs.net (Michelle Sullivan) [Wed 16 Dec 2009, 17:41 CET]:
[..]
. The obvious answer is if you have signed SLAs then you should
adhere to those SLAs as a minimum and give better service if time
allows... Hands up those who have an SLA (free
Bill Weiss wrote:
Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100:
Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text.
On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read:
This will route any created ticket to the robot handler which
Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/14/2009 04:32 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
snip
I'm a robot writing you on behalf of the SORBS' admins. The reason
you're getting this automated response, is our desire to provide you
with consistent and fast responses. I'm prepared to correctly analyze
most
William wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps people wouldn't have to email you if the robot actually did what
it said it was going to do. Your website promises that the robot will
get things delisted out of the DUHL zone in 3 to 5 hours.
Please feel free to show me *any* SORBS webpage that says
John R. Levine wrote:
So write to her from a gmail account. APEWS is pretty kooky, and I'm
kind of surprised if SORBS is using it.
We use ASPEWS not APEWS (there is a vast cookiness difference).
Shells
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was always
under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or you are
moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts. The ticket engine is web based and has
an interface to
John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses ASPEWS,
Guess I'm a
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was
always under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or
you are moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts.
Oh and to re-iterate a point
45 matches
Mail list logo
