Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Christopher Balmain]

We had a lot of issues delivering mail to yahoo.com.sg about a year ago
(just the .sg domain, plain .com was fine). Could establish connection
but it'd die halfway through transferring mail. A static route to drop
the MTU (for their subnet only) to 1000 fixed the problem right up.

Not sure if pmtud was/is broken or what.

- Chris

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 15:29 +1000, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
> Thanks anyway.  I just find this issue intriguing since not all Yahoo 
> mail accounts are affected.  In addition, incoming mails from other 
> domain doesn't seem to be affected.  That is why I want to check if it 
> is a network issue :)
> 
> -nathan
> 
> On 4/12/2011 1:17 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Brielle Bruns  wrote:
> >> On 4/11/11 10:47 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >>> mpetach@opstools1:~>telnet 219.90.94.56 25
> >>> Trying 219.90.94.56...
> >>> Connected to static-host-219-90-94-56.tri.ph.
> >>> Escape character is '^]'.
> >>> ehlo yahoo.com
> >>> 554 SMTP synchronization error
> >>> Connection closed by foreign host.
> >>> mpetach@opstools1:~>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I imagine when port 25 stops giving 5xx
> >>> failure message back, mail reception
> >>> might improve.   ^_^;
> >>
> >>
> >> Works fine for me, your getting an error because your trying to send a
> >> command before receiving the first 220, aka RFC violation.  As long as you
> >> connect, wait a moment without trying to send a command, your fine.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > See, that's what happens when you ask networking people
> > to try to troubleshoot mail issues.  ^_^;;
> >
> > Sorry about that.  :(
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> 

Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Nathanael C. Cariaga]

Strangely though I noticed that the email accounts that seems to be 
affected by our concern seems to be related to the Yahoo SG servers.


On 4/12/2011 3:04 PM, Christopher Balmain wrote:

We had a lot of issues delivering mail to yahoo.com.sg about a year ago
(just the .sg domain, plain .com was fine). Could establish connection
but it'd die halfway through transferring mail. A static route to drop
the MTU (for their subnet only) to 1000 fixed the problem right up.

Not sure if pmtud was/is broken or what.

- Chris

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 15:29 +1000, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:

Thanks anyway.  I just find this issue intriguing since not all Yahoo
mail accounts are affected.  In addition, incoming mails from other
domain doesn't seem to be affected.  That is why I want to check if it
is a network issue :)

-nathan

On 4/12/2011 1:17 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Brielle Bruns   wrote:

On 4/11/11 10:47 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

mpetach@opstools1:~> telnet 219.90.94.56 25
Trying 219.90.94.56...
Connected to static-host-219-90-94-56.tri.ph.
Escape character is '^]'.
ehlo yahoo.com
554 SMTP synchronization error
Connection closed by foreign host.
mpetach@opstools1:~>


I imagine when port 25 stops giving 5xx
failure message back, mail reception
might improve.   ^_^;



Works fine for me, your getting an error because your trying to send a
command before receiving the first 220, aka RFC violation.  As long as you
connect, wait a moment without trying to send a command, your fine.


Doh!

See, that's what happens when you ask networking people
to try to troubleshoot mail issues.  ^_^;;

Sorry about that.  :(

Matt









--
Nathanael C. Cariaga
Network & Security Administrator
St Luke's Medical Center

Tel (QC) :  +63 2 723 0101 ext 5520 / 4206
Tel (GC) :  +63 2 789 7700 ext 6035 / 6036
Tel  :  +63 2 356 5686
Mobile   :  +63 922 8735686
EMail:  nccari...@stluke.com.ph

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[Michael DeMan]

I really don't think anybody is concerned about how fast the email downloads 
anymore.

Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the 
incredible volume of information we are expected to process.

I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree it 
would be good for the NaNog list to decide on a policy.

I say we all vote.

The ultimate question on email etiquette is naturally how to properly identify 
inline commentary.

Top-post is definitely the most efficient for that.  For instance, if I have a 
lengthy correspondence with a peer who may or may not speed English, the 
top-post is always respected, and from there it is quite easy (because it is in 
the top) to note that other commentary is inline - and (as I mentioned before) 
- to remove unnecessary material while leaving short portions of material 
relevant.

To get back on topic about using email efficiently and get away from peoples 
personal preferences, I will say the following.

#1) I have no disagreement about whether to top-post or bottom-post on this 
list or any other - given that there is a policy in place.  Maintaing 
communications is the most important thing.

#2) I still do not understand how 'bottom posters' reference material from 
prior e-mails in their replies?  Perhaps I am just ignorant.  I often have 
lengthy business and technical communications which some times require a bit of 
snipping here and there - the best way to notify somebody you have  
the prior conversation is to say it right up front?

#3) These kinds of things become even more important when working with 
non-native English speakers.

#4) I still seem to believe (maybe I am wrong) - that 'bottom posters' thing 
that an individual email to list is supposed to be an 'archive' - I wholly 
disagree.



On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Tim Chown wrote:

> 
> On 12 Apr 2011, at 07:33, Michael DeMan wrote:
> 
>> Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information via 
>> email, that if possible, the relevant information show up immediately.
>> 
>> Call me lazy I guess - but I would expect that most folks on this list have 
>> also understood good user interface design, and that the least amount of 
>> work that needs to be done for the receiver to be able to get their 
>> information is frequently the best solution.
> 
> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the volumes of 
> email most of us probably see each day.
> 
> Back when receiving an email was an event, and your xbiff flag popping up was 
> a cause for excitement, taking time to scroll/page down to the new 
> bottom-posted content in the reply was part of the enjoyment of the whole 
> 'You have new mail' process. But I'm afraid times have changed; 
> bottom-posted email is now an annoyance to most just as a slow-loading web 
> page would be.
> 
> Tim

Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
 wrote:
> Strangely though I noticed that the email accounts that seems to be affected
> by our concern seems to be related to the Yahoo SG servers.
>

Oh.  You don't seem to want to accept connections from the singapore
servers at all:

-bash-3.2$ telnet qc.stluke.com.ph 25
Trying 219.90.94.56...
Connected to qc.stluke.com.ph.
Escape character is '^]'.
550 Blacklisted: Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?115.178.12.223
Connection closed by foreign host.
-bash-3.2$

So, they really can't send mail to your users--but it's your machine
rejecting the connection.  :/

Matt

> On 4/12/2011 3:04 PM, Christopher Balmain wrote:
>>
>> We had a lot of issues delivering mail to yahoo.com.sg about a year ago
>> (just the .sg domain, plain .com was fine). Could establish connection
>> but it'd die halfway through transferring mail. A static route to drop
>> the MTU (for their subnet only) to 1000 fixed the problem right up.
>>
>> Not sure if pmtud was/is broken or what.
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 15:29 +1000, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks anyway.  I just find this issue intriguing since not all Yahoo
>>> mail accounts are affected.  In addition, incoming mails from other
>>> domain doesn't seem to be affected.  That is why I want to check if it
>>> is a network issue :)
>>>
>>> -nathan
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2011 1:17 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Brielle Bruns   wrote:
>
> On 4/11/11 10:47 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>> mpetach@opstools1:~>     telnet 219.90.94.56 25
>> Trying 219.90.94.56...
>> Connected to static-host-219-90-94-56.tri.ph.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> ehlo yahoo.com
>> 554 SMTP synchronization error
>> Connection closed by foreign host.
>> mpetach@opstools1:~>
>>
>>
>> I imagine when port 25 stops giving 5xx
>> failure message back, mail reception
>> might improve.   ^_^;
>
>
> Works fine for me, your getting an error because your trying to send a
> command before receiving the first 220, aka RFC violation.  As long as
> you
> connect, wait a moment without trying to send a command, your fine.

 Doh!

 See, that's what happens when you ask networking people
 to try to troubleshoot mail issues.  ^_^;;

 Sorry about that.  :(

 Matt


>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Nathanael C. Cariaga
> Network & Security Administrator
> St Luke's Medical Center
>
> Tel (QC) :  +63 2 723 0101 ext 5520 / 4206
> Tel (GC) :  +63 2 789 7700 ext 6035 / 6036
> Tel      :  +63 2 356 5686
> Mobile   :  +63 922 8735686
> EMail    :  nccari...@stluke.com.ph
>
>

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Michael DeMan wrote:

The ultimate question on email etiquette is naturally how to properly 
identify inline commentary.


It's not a problem.

Inline is done by trimming lines that are not needed and quoted text is 
prefaced by a > sign. So if the email you're reading doesn't have a few 
lines of > followed by text, the sender doesn't know how to properly 
quote/trim and answer inline and most of the time their text is not worth 
reading anyway.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: AnySuggestions as to anAlternative? )

[Michael Painter]

Tim Chown wrote:

Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the volumes of 
email most of us probably see each day.


Top posting works in conversations you are having with someone, usually just one person, because you  are aware of what's 
been said.
If one comes into a conversation with many people and reads the top post, there is no reference to what that applies to 
unless you've been following the conversation from the beginning.


I wonder if anyone actually took the time to read the relevant links on the 
NANOG page gord referred to?

http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-9 

Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?

[Florian Weimer]

* Justin Scott:

>> No such luck: They want me to PAY FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR for
>> which I did NOT receive service and then for the current (upcoming
>> year). Sorry - I don't allow myself to be ripped off like that.
>
> Hi John, this is actually a pretty common practice for service
> subscription models where the software and its components (spam filter
> rules in this case) are being continually updated.

But it's not been updated during the sabbatical.  In this regard, it's
very different from crisis support services, where such a model is
still obnoxious, but at least makes some sense.

> but you're going to benefit NOW from work that was done at that time
> (the un-paid period) AND all the future updates that come out during
> your new renewal period.

Seems doubtful, given the volatility of filtering rules.

-- 
Florian Weimer
BFK edv-consulting GmbH   http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100  tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

[Luigi Iannone]

On 11, Apr, 2011, at 17:26 , Owen DeLong wrote:

 
 But can you explain better? Why should LISP require more IP space than 
 normal IPv4 deployment?
 
 If you are a new site, you ask for an IP block. This is independent from 
 whether or not you will use LISP.
 
>>> Sure, but, if you also need locators, don't you need additional IP space to 
>>> use for locators?
>> 
>> No, those are the IP address that you provider gives to your border router.
>> 
> Right... In addition to my provider independent addresses... That's more 
> address space than is required
> if I am not using LISP.
> 

No, you just use the IP addresses of the interface to your upstream as 
"locators". 
Those addresses are there anyway, right?
So using LISP is not adding anything.


>> 
>> No true. I ask for a PI block that I will use as EID-Prefix, then the 
>> locators are part of the address space of my providers.
>> There is no duplication.
>> 
>> 
> Right... Ordinarily, without LISP, I get a PI block and use that for EID and 
> the routing is based on the
> EID prefix. With LISP, the EID prefix is PI and I use additional PA resources 
> to do the routing locators.
> That's what I meant by duplication. There are additional PA resources 
> required on top of the PI in order
> to make LISP work.

I still do not see this duplication (may be I need more coffee this morning..)
You do not need to modify anything in the PA space of your provider. Those 
resources are there and are used to make your block reachable also without 
LISP. 

Luigi

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

[Luigi Iannone]

On 11, Apr, 2011, at 23:53 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> I do tend to think that any technology sufficiently confusing that I cannot
>> understand it well after reasonable effort is of questionable value
>> for wide deployment.
> 
> The secret is to ignore all the crazy acronyms and boil it down to
> this -- LISP sets up tunnels to remote end-points based on what it
> learns from a mapping server, and these tunnels may be used by one or
> more end-to-end flows.
> 
>>> I personally believe LISP is a horrible idea that will have trouble
>>> scaling up, because a large table of LISP mappings is not any easier
>>> to store in FIB than a larger DFZ.  The "solution" the LISP folks
>> This is one of the few parts of LISP I do understand and I'm not entirely
>> convinced that it is all that bad because you don't have to do this on
>> core routers, you can push it out pretty close to the customer edge,
>> possibly even on the customer side of said edge.
> 
> We already have this in the core today, thanks to MPLS.  The problem
> with LISP is the router that does encapsulation, which you can think
> of as conceptually identical to a PE router, must have a large enough
> FIB for all simultaneous flows out of the customers behind that PE
> router.  This may be a very large number for an end-user PE router
> with a bunch of subscribers behind it running P2P file sharing, and
> may also be very large for a hosting shop with end-users from all over
> the globe downloading content.

This is not true. There are several works out there showing that the FIB will 
not grow as you are saying.

Luigi


>  In the case of a CDN, one distributed
> CDN node may have far fewer active flows (installed in FIB) than the
> size of the DFZ, since the CDN would intend to direct end-users to a
> geographically-local CDN node.
> 
> As you know, I like to think of what happens when you receive a DDoS.
> In the case of LISP, if there are a huge number of source addresses
> sending just one packet to you that generates some kind of reply, your
> PE router will query its mapping server, install a new
> tunnel/next-hop, and transmit the reply packet.  If the FIB is not
> large enough to install every flow, it will churn, creating a DoS
> condition essentially identical to what we saw with older flow-cache
> based routers when they were subjected to traffic to/from a very large
> number of hosts.
> 
> Like you, I am not 100% sure of my position on LISP, but I do think I
> understand it has a very serious design limit that probably doesn't
> make things look any better than "polluting" the DFZ from the
> perspective of content providers or end-user ISPs.  It does have
> benefits from the carrier perspective because, as you say, it can move
> the "PE router" into the customer's network and move state information
> from the carrier to the edge; but I think this comes at a high
> complexity cost and might result in overall more work/cost for
> everyone.
> 
> -- 
> Jeff S Wheeler 
> Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts
> 

Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Nathanael C. Cariaga]

Oh well... Just have to inform our users :(

Thanks! =)


ps.  I'm just wondering why yahoo doesn't inform their users that the 
email that they sent was blocked because of their servers were listed in 
a blocklist (inspite that the server is able to return a correct reject 
code 550)




On 4/12/2011 3:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

-bash-3.2$ telnet qc.stluke.com.ph 25
Trying 219.90.94.56...
Connected to qc.stluke.com.ph.
Escape character is '^]'.
550 Blacklisted: Blocked - seehttp://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?115.178.12.223
Connection closed by foreign host.
-bash-3.2$



--

Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Tell you the truth, you shouldnt be dropping the connection right at
the smtp banner with a 5xx - return it after RCPT TO.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
 wrote:
> Oh well... Just have to inform our users :(
>
> Thanks! =)
>
>
> ps.  I'm just wondering why yahoo doesn't inform their users that the email
> that they sent was blocked because of their servers were listed in a
> blocklist (inspite that the server is able to return a correct reject code
> 550)



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

Re: Top-posting

[Arnold Nipper]

on 12.04.2011 08:45 Michael DeMan wrote:

> Generally what I see is that younger people who grew up using email
> when they were children desire to bottom post or post inline whereas
> folks that originally utilized email primarily to communicate
> technical information only generally prefer to top-post.
> 

I would say, it's just the other way round.



Just my .02€
Arnold
-- 
Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting, Sandhausen, Germany
email: arn...@nipper.de   phone: +49 6224 9259 299
mobile: +49 152 53717690  fax:   +49 6224 9259 333



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:49:17 +0100
Tim Chown  wrote:
>> Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information
>> via email, that if possible, the relevant information show up
>> immediately.

Right.  And the most relevant information is the snippet being replied
to in that email - or that part of the email.
 
> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
> volumes of email most of us probably see each day.

Indeed.  It lets us filter out people who don't understand the protocol
and probably have less useful information for us.

> Back when receiving an email was an event, and your xbiff flag
> popping up was a cause for excitement, taking time to scroll/page down

Back then we also trimmed the text so that we didn't have to page down
a few screens to see the reply.  Then, like now, if someone can't be
bothered to compose a message properly I just move on.

Also back then we still read lots of messages.  We just used Usenet
instead of email.  Now that email has supplanted Usenet for many
discussion groups (a good thing IMHO) we get more mail.  I find that
the amount of time spent reading discussions has been pretty steady
over the years.  It's just the number of groups that has decreased as
has the medium.

The way I see it, I read many orders of magnitude more messages than I
send.  That tells me that the bulk of the work involved should be in
composing.  The work composing is multiplied by 1.  The work reading
can be multiplied by many thousands.

> changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance to most just as a
> slow-loading web page would be.

It's only an annoyance if you try to repeat the entire thread in each
message.  The basic rule is not "you must bottom post."  It is "you
must trim and bottom post."  For more detail we have archives.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain  |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/|  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Re: [Nanog] Re: LISP

[Lori Jakab]

On 04/12/2011 02:12 AM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:02 AM, harbor235 wrote:
> > http://www.lisp4.net/
>
> This sounds a lot like LNP in the telco world.  Is the goal here to
> make IP's "portable" ?  

One of the goals, yes.

> Or is this a viable way to access IPv6 from either an IPv4 host or an
> IPv6 host unfortunate enough to not have full IPv6 tables?

LISP will not do translation for you, so an IPv6-only host will not be
able to talk to an IPv4-only host by just using LISP. However, solving
the problem of not having full IPv6 tables is possible in two ways: 1)
you use IPv4 locators so basically tunnel the traffic over IPv4; or 2)
use a proxy tunnel router that does have access to full IPv6 tables.

>
> And do all of the networks you pass through have to be LISP enabled?

Ideally, the source and destination networks both have to be LISP
enabled, the core doesn't have to know anything about LISP. It is
however possible for LISP enabled sites to communicate with sites not
deploying LISP, using proxy tunnel routers deployed by third parties.
For more discussion about how this might be deployed see Section 4 of
the LISP deployment document:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jakab-lisp-deployment-03#section-4

Regards,

-- 
Lori Jakab
UPC Advanced Broadband Communications Center

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[gord]

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 00:08 -0700, Michael DeMan wrote:

Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the 
incredible volume of information we are expected to process.
> 
> I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree it 
> would be good for the NaNog list to decide on a policy.
> 
There is a policy already in place - in the NANOG General Mailing List Posting 
Convention. I linked to it when I first commented that I couldn't follow the 
flow about filtering ops for large-scale mail queues.

For anyone has trouble accessing the internet at 
http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/listfaqs/generalfaq.php?qt=convent
here's what it says..

"Format 
When posting to the NANOG list please avoid: 
1. Top-posting, i.e., putting your reply right on top of the message you're 
responding to ."

Pedants will note, before it causes yet another war, that I haven't quoted it 
with " > " because it is a body of text not a previous email contribution to 
the list.

Sadly, my initial observation in the thread has prompted 3 rather obnoxious 
off-list emails. Those ASs can now whistle if they expect anything from us, 
operationally or otherwise. Sad.

I found the thread particularly hard to follow once top-posting had started 
because I scan the NANOG list for operational issues and requests, not 
spamtools, so I was unfamiliar with some of the sales terms passed about, even 
though I have run BSD-based systems for several high-volume streams in a ISP 
environment myself.

I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic here 
(which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my head in 
(because of the top posting breaking the flow) to follow it all when I could 
only give it 10 seconds (max) per post.

gord


-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?

[Nick Hilliard]

On 09/04/2011 10:37, Bryan Irvine wrote:

As do some states with automotive registration. It's a quite normal practice.


If you're in a monopoly or near-monopoly position, you can get away with 
screwing over your customer base.


If you're in a competitive market, practices like support catch-up fees 
depend on a company's ability to trade on their customers' ignorance about 
what products are available in the market.  Who knows, it may well work for 
this quarter or the next - but as a long term business proposition, it's 
quite corrosive to customer loyalty.


Nick

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:17:54 +0100
gord  wrote:
> I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic
> here (which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my

Actually, I don't think it is off-topic.  Meta-discussions about the
list are considered on-topic for the list.  This is a discussion about
whether the rules for the list should be changed and so is on-topic.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain  |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/|  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[gord]

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 07:58 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:17:54 +0100
> gord  wrote:
> > I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic
> > here (which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my
> 
> Actually, I don't think it is off-topic.  Meta-discussions about the
> list are considered on-topic for the list.  This is a discussion about
> whether the rules for the list should be changed and so is on-topic.
> 

I was referring to my initial post/comment that started all of this,
_that_ thread was technically off-topic when referring to software
methods, though that's largely irrelevant and I personally couldn't give
a hoot.

http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/listfaqs/topicfaq.php?qt=offtopic&q=all

refers.

Now I sound like a bookthumper :)

What I was originally saying was "I'm confused - this is a bottom-post
list by the list convention, but top-posting is happening to my
detriment" 

Stepping back from it, I think I'll take a break from this for a weeks -
contact by phone/irc and noc@ only please. If you don't have the
numbers, well, tough.

gord

--

Re: Facebook Opens Up Its Hardware Secrets

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Bruce Williams wrote:

> In doing so, the company is breaking a long-established unwritten rule for 
> Web companies: don't share the secrets of your server-stuffed data warehouses


 (currently the topmost 
article in the 'electronics' category; article permalink doesn't work)

---
Roland Dobbins  // 

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Tim Chown  wrote:
> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
>volumes of email most of us probably see each day.

That's true... if you're adding a trivial thought to an already concise thread.

If you're adding complex argument or information, or if the thread has
wandered into a wide topic, a top-posted message is often
incomprehensible. Without the context provided by posting inline, the
reader can't immediately tell what point or points you're responding
to.

That's why in lists like this one we intermix new thoughts with the
information they're responsive to. More, bottom-posting is just a
subset of inline posting in which we're only responding to one
element.


> But I'm afraid times have changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance
>to most just as a slow-loading web page would be.

Then you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to trim the original down
to just the context that clarifies your response. That's the other
problem with top-posters... nobody trims, so if I want to understand
what they're attempting to say I have to scroll down, read all the
previous messages and then guess which part they're replying to.

Usually the lazy top-poster hasn't said anything worth that much effort.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:49:17 BST, Tim Chown said:

> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
> volumes of email most of us probably see each day.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129565913825601&w=2

Go read that thread.  115 messages and counting.  Read *all* of them. Then
think how much longer it would have taken if everybody had top posted.

Second note in the thread - new text is:

RIP to this guy, won't be missed :)

You *really* want to have read the context on that before reading the comment.
If top-posted, it leaves you thinking something entirely different ;)



pgpTWdzQQm7rm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to anAlternative? )

[JC Dill]

 On 12/04/11 6:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Tim Chown  wrote:

But I'm afraid times have changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance
to most just as a slow-loading web page would be.

Then you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to trim the original down
to just the context that clarifies your response. That's the other
problem with top-posters... nobody trims, so if I want to understand
what they're attempting to say I have to scroll down, read all the
previous messages and then guess which part they're replying to.

Usually the lazy top-poster hasn't said anything worth that much effort.


An even bigger problem is that the lazy top-poster often misses critical 
issues that either clarify the post they are replying to (making their 
reply irrelevant) or forgets to reply to something critical in the 
quoted text.  I run into this often at $dayjob, where I can't ask more 
than one question in an email because the top-posted reply generally 
only addresses the first question.


The people who top post see this as a feature - they get their reply 
composed and sent off faster and can then move on to other things.  They 
don't understand why they fail to thrive in their jobs as co-workers 
start to route discussions around them and then ultimately they are the 
first to be laid off because they aren't seen as an essential part of 
the team.


jc

Re: Level 3 Agrees to Purchase Global Crossing

[ML]

On 4/11/2011 10:13 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-04-11/level-3-agrees-to-acquire-global-crossing-in-deal-valued-at-1-9-billion.html


The deal will combine two unprofitable companies with total revenue of
$6.26 billion as of last year, and cut annualized capital spending by
about $40 million, according to the statement. It will also help reduce
the pressure on prices, which have declined by as much as 30 percent a
year in the industry, said Donna Jaegers, an analyst at DA Davidson &
Co.

“This is what telecom has needed for a long time,” said Denver-based
Jaegers, who recommends buying both stocks. “You have way too many
players.”




If L3 merges GBLX in as well as they did Broadwing...the little guy 
stands to do pretty well.

Re: Yahoo! Mail Issue

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Nathanael C. Cariaga" 

> Thanks anyway. I just find this issue intriguing since not all Yahoo
> mail accounts are affected. In addition, incoming mails from other
> domain doesn't seem to be affected. That is why I want to check if it
> is a network issue :)

It only happens when the sending server is less than 600 miles from you.

Cheers,
-- jra