On 4/17/13 6:28 AM, Caio Alves wrote:
Someone has access problems in GMAIL? Here in Brazil, many complaints about
the service.
Google made a change so that the user account name must be just
MAILBOX, and not MAILBOX@gmail.com.
Deleting the domain name fixed my account this morning.
ry
--
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
The public suffix list contains points in the DNS where (roughly
speaking) names below that point are under different management from
each other and from that name. It's here:
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
On 2013-04-19, at 14:17, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
It is already, isn't it? The NS and SOA records will tell you all there
is to know about zone splits and cross zone relations.
Not really.
In general, just because a zone is served by the same nameservers as another
zone doesn't mean
Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
If the rule was just the nameservers need to be the same and the SOA
RDATA needs to be the same, for some well-documented meaning of 'same'
then gaming that rule (e.g. for purposes of cookie injection) as a
miscreant is unpleasantly straightforward.
To
On 4/19/2013 12:57 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
To reinforce Joe's point, there doesn't even need to be a zone cut for
there to be an administrative cut. There are various ISPs and dynamic DNS
providers that put all their users in the same zone, and the common suffix
of a zone like this should be
This report has been generated at Fri Apr 19 21:13:18 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Apr-13 -to- 18-Apr-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS47331 72724 3.2% 35.3 -- TTNET TTNet A.S.
2 - AS58113 67954 3.0%
On 4/19/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 4/19/2013 12:57 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
To reinforce Joe's point, there doesn't even need to be a zone cut for
there to be an administrative cut. There are various ISPs and dynamic DNS
providers that put all their users in the same zone, and
If the DS record identifies a different signer, then you have an
administrative split,
or if the e-mail address field in the SOA fields of the parent zone
are different, then you have an administrative split, OR if one of the
two zones has RP (responsible party records), and the list of RP
On 4/19/2013 4:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
It seems this is more about providing a security function to DNS, to
inform the public, about where the responsible parties change.
Absent a view that somehow says all metadata is a security function, I
don't see how the marking of administrative
On 4/19/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 4/19/2013 4:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
[snip]
Absent a view that somehow says all metadata is a security function, I
don't see how the marking of administrative boundaries qualifies as a
security function.
The security function comes in
1. Explicitly marking an administrative boundary is not inherently a
'security' function, although properly authorizing and protecting the
marking no doubt would be.
2. Defining a marking mechanism that is built into a security mechanism
that is designed for other purposes is overloading
On 4/19/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
That is only theoretically possible, if every boundary keeper participates.
In reality, you would wind up with some zones having explicit marking,
and most zones not having any marking at all, just because the admin
didn't bother to pick up on
14 matches
Mail list logo
