sorry, I mistyped the OIDs in my mail.
Tree .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.59.1 is still here (remote-query status)
is .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.59.1.1
Tree .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.59.2 completly disapeared :-/ (CM values)
is .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.59.1.2
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pascal
this bug says:
Remote-query unconfiguring does not work properly.
Work around: no known work around at this time.
I've noticed that, but I dont think its related as sh cable modem remote-query
works perfectly
Yes, I know, I have read the discription which obviously does not really
Hi folks,
I don't know if I missed any discussion on this, but I thought
I'd post this out of interest:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/countries/switzerland.htm
paragraph 7:
The new law also provides for the surveillance of e-mails, which are
treated as every other
Nice try, but even if there is no legal obligation, I think a provider has
to take every measure to protect the community and if they don't do so they
may have to expect some unwanted reactions
Regards
Pap
Am 29.10.2003 17:52 Uhr schrieb Zalaba, Mike unter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(English text
Hello
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up user have to send
mail over his own mail server? I don't see the problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of
providers which repeatedly fail to prevent spam from sometimes repeatedly the same
sources.
Regards
Fermin
Hi Mike
It remains after-noticing again that there (still) is NO legal obligation
for Provider to prevent Spam.
well but there is also no legal obligation to accept emails from anyone.
It's our lone decision and within our duty g as a postmaster.
A closing from whole IP rank for Mailverkehr
hi there
sure on cryptome i found already last year some information about Lawful
Interception of Telecommunications Traffic and the requirements for
delivery the emails to the bupo. http://cryptome.org/ch-ilets-regs.htm
it would be nice to get some practice-home-story from an isp ;)
cheers
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up
user have to send mail over his own mail server? I don't see the
problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of providers which repeatedly
fail to prevent spam from
Have not seen the small print saying ...you are not allowed to send direct
e-mails by SMTP, TCP port 25, to other servers or recipients other then the
ISP designated SMTP server... ;-)
Tend to suggest the implementation of mac based machines (e.g. Nomadix
Service Engine) for dial-up customers -
Feel free and rent your fixed IP address or even better some rack space and
bandwidth at your favorite ISP (bet most of the peoples on this list have
plenty...) - and you can perfectly run your private mail server - and even
block SPAM coming in over 100Mb/1G Ethernet long before traveling the
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS. Looking forward: When do we start implementing RMX (Reverse Mail
Exchange) records in DNS, following the IETF proposal? And then: Don't add
entries on your complete IP net block, just the designated SMTP servers
please...
RMX doesn't work in real life.
--
Andre
Tend to agree, partially. If real life .eqs. world or real life .eqs.
misconfigured RMX ... so the wrong people still can work aroud.
Hm, better then RBL and nothing...
-Kurt.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andre Oppermann
Sent:
Next use either connection limiting features (such as FreeBSD ipfw2)
Just one word of caution on this one: I've had this activated on
our mail server (IPFW2 in 4.x-STABLE) a couple of months ago, and
it lead to very odd memory corruption issues (panics that _all_
looked like hardware problems,
Did I said Nomadix has the final solution and out of the box, readily
available? Of course you are 100% right ;-)) Sorry, I missed a chapter in my
letter.
The real question: Why is readily available technology not implemented
accordingly, and certain ISP do still provide those free dial-up?
And
Markus Wild wrote:
Next use either connection limiting features (such as FreeBSD ipfw2)
Just one word of caution on this one: I've had this activated on
our mail server (IPFW2 in 4.x-STABLE) a couple of months ago, and
it lead to very odd memory corruption issues (panics that _all_
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 19:48, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up
user have to send mail over his own mail server? I don't see the
problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of
And, you don't have to look for another working SMTP server, when you're
travelling around with your notebook. Lots of SMTP servers, for example
mail.bluewin.ch, can only be accessed within their own ip ranges.
there are a lot of email providers with SMTP-AUTH and/or SMTP-after-POP
around. Not
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
SMTP-AUTH (plain text and preferably CRAM-MD5), SMTPafterPOP or similar are
highly encouraged for any SMTP server - otherwise another dial-up IP will be
listed on the RBLs very soon and the value of your private server becomes
very limited ;-)
Again NO reason for
Andre,
There are some friends arguing driving their own mail servers - of course on
dial-up, ADSL or other broadband networks... This is the only point where
SMTP-AUTH comes in - and has nothing to do with the subject - indeed.
If someone desperately wants to connect his private mail server from
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:51:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS.
You don't seem to understand how SMTP works.
Hehe, oh well... Twice in one hour from the same source. No further comment
required.
Trust him, he is a pro.
:)
--
:wq Claudio
well trust those two guys ;-)
cheers
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:51:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS.
You don't seem to understand how SMTP works.
Hehe, oh well... Twice in one hour from the same source. No further comment
required.
Trust him, he is a pro.
:)
--
:wq
Mike,
This could be a reaction from other ISP's because there was no answer from
econophone for ABUSE complaints. Normaly this is the last resort (no ISP
inlcude blocking rules just for fun ! ) to protect the own customers.
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 17:52, Zalaba, Mike wrote:
In last time
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:52:23PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can
perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for
an intervention on the so called customer side.
Look, I wouldn't want my
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:07:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
Sorry, this is NO REASON to run a mail server behind a dial-up IP line.
And if I don't feel like changing the SMTP-smarthost on my *NIX-Laptop
_again_ ?
Seegras
--
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary
Hi Seegras,
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:52:23PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can
perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for
an intervention on
'llo again
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:07:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
Sorry, this is NO REASON to run a mail server behind a dial-up IP line.
And if I don't feel like changing the SMTP-smarthost on my *NIX-Laptop
_again_ ?
well...
26 matches
Mail list logo
