On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:52:29PM -, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
> >FWIW, as I'm in the middle of this right now. It would appear that many of
> >the less expensive registrars no longer support glue records in any
> >meaningful way. They all expect you to host DNS with t
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:51:04AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:14 AM Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> The NEST guys also didn't seem very receptive to the emergency alert stuff
> when I contacted them.
And the NEST folk say there is NO WAY that you will ever b
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:53:21PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> If the product managers for smart speakers and smart TVs are successful,
> and replace am/fm radios and cable/over-the-air TVs in households,
> eventually there will be a catastrophe. After the catstrophe, the public
> (and
Sadly, no report that I have seen has indicated that any legal process or court
order
was in action.
--
-=[L]=-
Reassembled from random thought waves
... the puckish comment of Gertrude Stein: "There ain't no answer. There
ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's th
Please contact me offlist about an NTP attack.
--
-=[L]=-
Composed on an ASR33
Linux? Is that an OS, like Pentium?
The problem that I see with browser response to self-signed (or org generated)
certs is
not the warning(s) but the assertion that the cert is invalid. Not issued by
one of the
players in the Protection Racket does not make the cert invalid. It may be
untrustable,
unreliable, from an unknown and/
The real question is why the referrer field was not under user control
in the first place. Having to never click on a link, but rather to
cut and paste it into the address bar is not a satisfactory work-around.
Still, why has it not been put under user control, now that we have a better
appreciati
The other day, I looked carefully at my auth.log (Xubuntu 11.04) and discovered
many lines
of the form:
Jun 28 13:13:54 localhost sshd[12654]: Bad protocol version
identification '\200F\001\003\001' from 94.252.177.159
In the past day, I have recorded about 20,000 unique IP addresses used
One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
to his domain's A record machine, despite the fact that he has valid MX records.
The A record points to my webserver, which does not normally accept mail
for
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:38:31AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 7/26/12, Lou Katz wrote:
> > One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
> > tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
> > to his domain's A record mach
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:05:55AM -0500, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
>
> > One of my users has reported incoming mail failures, which I finally
> > tracked down. It turned out that Hotmail has seen fit to send the mail
> > to hi
regarding DDoS. Please contact me off-list.
--
-=[L]=-
Reassembled from random thought waves
"We have a saying here on Jupiter -- everybody talks about the Great Red
Spot but nobody does anything about it." - Lauren Weinstein
A routing/filtering problem probably between
be2185.ccr22.cle04.atlas.cogentco.com
and be2009.ccr21.alb02.atlas.cogentco.com.
--
-=[Lou Katz]=-
Composed on an ASR33
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 01:22:51PM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> i am looking for a referral to a registrar who can get me a .cn domain,
> without registering it on my behalf then extorting me.
>
> i saw a notice that CNNIC suspended non-chinese registrars, but i haven't
> found anything telling m
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/5/2010 11:17, Joseph C. Bender wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps economic pressure will be a good enough reason for the
> > registrars to actually get moving and make progress with better support.
> > OpenSRS kept my business because
I happen to have some non-standard applications running on port 80
on one of my machines. From time to time I get log messages noting
improper syntax (for my app) of the form:
'GET /roundcube/CHANGELOG HTTP/1.1' 200.19.191.98
'GET /mail/CHANGELOG HTTP/1.1'
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> >>Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best
> >>practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic
> >>that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name
> >>servers.
>
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:48:25PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >
> >>> Will be interesting to see if ISPs respond to a large scale thing like
> >>> this taking hold by blocking UDP/TC
We recently were told to contact a client (via ftp) at 192.0.0.201. IANA lists
this as
Special Use, but refers to "RFC 3330 for additional information.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt";.
This RFC says that it might be assigned in the future.
So, did the folks who sent us the IP address
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 08:12:31PM -0400, Max wrote:
> Was PBS one of the companies you are referring to? A colleague of
> mine worked as a developer on a project at PBS in the 90s that used
> the blanking interval for Internet transmissio - very cool stuff.
>
> > The one that was _much_ more i
20 matches
Mail list logo