I have requested http://www.siteadvisor.com/ to reclassify some sites and they have been changed.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Joel C. Ewing <[email protected]> wrote: > I doubt if many companies make an explicit determination of which of the > gazillions of Internet sites deserve blocking but just use some means to > select by broad category, depending on some outside source to properly > categorize sites -- a process that likely lacks 100% perfection. > > Our company had some kind of "net nanny" that either relied on a service > or on lists of "undesirables" from some outside source. Upon occasion > it blocked access to sites that we knew to be relatively benign and > potentially useful for performing our job as SysProg. > > At least for us, if you could provide a reasonable argument why access > to a blocked site was needed or useful for your job, you could get the > blocking lifted for that site, at least for yourself, maybe for others > as well. I suspect that decision was based in part on weighing any > potential harm of the site against the sophistication of the user making > the request. > Joel C. Ewing > > On 03/04/2016 10:45 AM, Leonardo Vaz wrote: >> You could be right, it might just be unintentional blocking. >> >> I would certainly prefer this version vs intentional blocking since the >> later is pretty much security by obscurity (as long as you don't know the >> code you can't do harm...) >> >> Leo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of John McKown >> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 11:23 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: gist.github.com unreachable [was: RE: rexx and tso alllocate] >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Leonardo Vaz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> That's not a private IP address on his LAN, it is the gist.github.com >>> IP address. >>> >> Correct. But if the LAN authorities think, as he did, that 192.0.0.0/8 is >> all private, instead of just 192.168.0.0/16, then their routing tables may >> be set up to not forward 192.30.252.141 to the outside world, but route the >> entire 192.0.0.0/8 to the inside only. Which would time out. As it did. >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] >>> On Behalf Of John McKown >>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 11:13 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: gist.github.com unreachable [was: RE: rexx and tso >>> alllocate] >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> You aren't the only one Steve. From my employer's network I can't >>>> reach gist.github.com at all, even just the main site never mind >>>> John's >>> area. >>>> Trying a tracert to gist.github.com only gets timeouts: >>>> >>>> Tracing route to gist.github.com [192.30.252.141] over a maximum of >>>> 30 >>>> hops: >>>> >>>> 1 * * * Request timed out. >>>> Etc. >>>> >>>> That DNS address (192.30.252.141) looks odd to me. I thought >>>> 192.*.*.* was reserved for private local networks, or is that only >>> 192.168.*.*? >>> the private IPv4 address ranges are: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, and >>> 192.168.0.0/16 ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network >>> >>> I'll almost bet your LAN people are laboring under the same delusion. >>> >>> >>>> I can reach gist from home though, maybe you can as well. >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> > ... > > -- > Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
