Re: Telco's write best practices for packet switching networks

On 04:37 PM 3/7/2002 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: >My comment was originally prompted by the meeting minutes which >reported on the survey data showing that 100% of carriers are implementing >firewalls in their gateways. The 100% is what caught my eye. Is that "100% of carriers report impleme

Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)

On 07:50 AM 5/19/02, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > >> RD> I often like to know if a particular web server is running Unix or >> RD> Winblows. A port scanner is a useful tool in making that determination. >> >> [allan@ns1 phpdig]$ telnet www.istop.com 80 >> Trying 216.187.106.194... >> Connect

Re: it's official

On 05:15 PM 6/4/02, Sean M. Doran wrote: > >i hate spamarrest. i really do. i hate it. Aha, you too! Got one like this, did you? >[sender] would like to receive your email "Re: [subject]". > >[sender] is now using Spamarrest to block unwanted email. >Spamarrest is a revolutionary and u

Re: SPEWS?

On 03:48 PM 6/20/02, John Payne wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Geo. wrote: >> I am a postmaster for a state wide ISP and we maintain our own blacklist >> along with usage of one other public blacklist, the spamcop blacklist. >> >> Why spamcop and not spews? > >My ques

Re: Supporting White Hats (Was SPEWS)

On 06:45 PM 6/20/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I work goddamn >hard keeping my corner crispy white, but the crispy whites are invisible when >it comes to sales time. Perhaps you should help the sales department position this important data in their marketing literature and sales pitches.

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT

I'm afraid you have brought up one of my pet peeves here. On 03:57 PM 7/9/02, Bill Thompson wrote: >What you are seeing is PGP/MIME, a standards based protocol for Standards exist as a way for parties who *agree* to use certain data formats to use a previously defined standard format witho

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT

On 08:53 AM 7/10/02, Leo Bicknell wrote: >If people are throwing away MIME messages with a single "text/plain" >section then they are firmly in the wrong. All of the "modern" >text and GUI mailers display this properly, inline, as a plain old >text message. Per the recently posted stats fo

Re: Evil PGP sigs thread must die. was Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT

On 01:30 PM 7/10/02, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >Thus spake "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Yes, but once again you must consider content, given that most mail >> clients don't automatically verify signatures. Most of us will have to >> make a judgement call as to whether or not to bother t

Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)

On 07:55 AM 7/11/02, David Diaz wrote: >Shane as far as the "thought" that backbones will "pay" to get to >your content. It's just not going to happen. If the content were >that important they might go directly to your customers and offer >them a wonderful deal to buy a link from them. Th

Re: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads

On 12:18 PM 7/11/02, Peter Salus wrote: > >I'd love to write The Internet for Bell-Heads. >Tell you what, Sean. You find an interested publisher >and I'll write it. Looks like a perfect title for the Idiot's Guide series. jc

Re: Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)

On 11:31 AM 7/11/02, E.B. Dreger wrote: > >JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700 >JD> From: JC Dill > > >JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly >JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for >JD> th

Re: Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)

On 08:33 PM 7/11/02, Barney Wolff wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:00:45PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: >> >> The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the packets >> is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly >

Re: QoS/CoS in the real world?

On 04:46 PM 7/13/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep their secret >safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP. There's a world of difference between "sell" and "actually provide". IMHO, QoS is sold by many networks, bu

Re: Act Surprised.....

On 06:23 PM 7/21/02, Jeff Workman wrote: > >http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/020721/worldcom_bankruptcy_16.html I *am* surprised. How does a company file BK on a Sunday? jc

Re: your mail

On 02:42 PM 8/8/02, Scott Granados wrote: > >Do people really almost get fired for what they write here? Sometimes, it's not "almost". Just 3 months ago: >I would like to take this opportunity to publicly shame eBay, who dec

Re: your mail

>> All of the evidence I could gather indicate that it did, in fact, happen >> in at least some form. At the very least, other employees (whom I have >> know for years) said that he was gone, as of the date in question. They >> were not told the cause (as would be expected in most companies)

Re: London incidents

Mark Foster wrote: "Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies damn lies statistics They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. This was assoc

Re: Someone from Sprint security please contact me

Chip Mefford wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Off list? Thanks kindly. (Second NANOG list request for this). Have you tried the noc contact list? finds 3 email addresses and 4 phone numbers to reach various divisions wit

Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry

Roy Badami wrote: Geo> Gee, it must be nice to be in the top 10% of the smart Geo> people. Why don't you suggest Valdis aim for the top 5% and Geo> figure out how Mr. Jeffrey I. Schiller manages to post using Geo> debian PGP signed messages that don't appear as attachments? Havi

Re: List Phishing of e-mails from nanog

Steve Brown wrote: Sweet, got my first piece of phishing SPAM (to the address I use for this list) shortly after posting a couple of days ago. That's probably because the nanog list is gatewayed to a newsgroup. Your posting address (and everyone else's posting address) has been exposed to a

Re: Phone networks struggle in Hurricane Katrina's wake

Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: Telephone companies struggled to restore service FYI - if you are trying to reach someone in the impacted area who has a cell phone but you can't get thru because "all circuits are busy" then give SMS a try. I exchanged 8 SMS messages[1] between 15:58 and 16:2

Re: Replacing PSTN with VoIP wise? Was Re: Phone networks struggle in Hurricane Katrina's wake

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But then, people don't really care about this, as cell is in the exact same boat and huge numbers of people rely on just their cell phone and no longer have a fixed line (in Europe at least). I have read accounts that suggest that cellphone subscribers from New Orlea

FWD: Explanation for the recent major downtime

My personal website is hosted with DreamHost. They sent this out to their customers today. Of interest to NANOG is the bit about the N+1 redundant genset system having 2 generators quickly fail, and in doing so having the UPS fail and the entire data center go dark. Something to consider i

Re: 209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP

Sean Figgins wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: regular email forwarding IF you filter first And if the customer specifically requests that YOU do not filter his email, or set up a system that allows him to see ALL email, even if ti is tagged as spam? Then you simply

Why is it necessary to "tag" on-topic news cites?

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I'm aware of quite a few people who have encouraged said poster to tag his off-topic posts for easy filtering, myself included. A brief cite and quote from a news article discussing the status of major networks (BellSouth Corp., SBC Communications, Cingular Wirel

Re: 209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP

Hannigan, Martin wrote: p.s. Speaking of "unreasonable requests" - I feel it is unreasonable for a member of the moderating committee to whine that he can't filter out "undesired" posts due to using a lame email client, and to then coerce a poster into "tagging" these posts. There are no

Re: (What If?) ccTLD Delegation Question

Joe Johnson wrote: Call it Monday Boredom, if you will, but a funny DNS question just popped into my head: if I were to, say, win the lotto and buy my own Island (which, of course, would technically be its own country), That's terribly hard to do: would

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Matthew Crocker wrote: Ok, I *pay* Cogent for 'Direct Internet Access' which is IP Transit service. I *cannot* get to part of the internet via Cogent right now. I also *pay* Sprint and GNAPS for 'Direct Internet Access' and I can get to all parts of the internet via their networks. I

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

James Spenceley wrote: Then start your search for a replacement provider. If every Cogent and Level3 customer did this today, this problem would be solved by the end of the week, guaranteed. I tend to think this is oversimplification. The big picture risk, cogent will be judged now by

Re: Press Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

William Allen Simpson wrote: Finally, some press taking notice: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4531 More at:

Re: Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic exchange was paid for and there was no settlement free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid full transit and paid partial transit on the menu? This assumes that one party wants to receive the bits more than

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Alex Rubenstein wrote: Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium. Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a "best effort" to connect their customers to Cogent's customers? Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from mostly-content networks to mos

Re: Level 3's side of the story

Eric Louie wrote: DISCLAIMER: From one of the clueless As a disclaimer, I will point out that there are some in this debate who consider me clueless as well. However, I don't believe that any of the following is in error. During this entire debaucle, I never saw any mention of: I've

It's only a flesh wound (was Re: OT: Anyone here know what's up with inet-access.net)

Gerry Boudreaux emailed Avi and me about this on 9/30: > The server that has been hosting inet-access took a nose dive > yesterday. > > Hopefully we can have it rebuilt by tomorrow. Apparently rebuilding the server is taking a bit longer than anticipated. Well, maybe it's a pretty big flesh w

Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

Christopher Woodfield wrote: "...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met." So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm guessing they agreed to pay some sort of "traffic imbalance fee"? Ther

Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?"

David Barak wrote: --- Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is that still true if the "adequate" service is being provided at a price which is two to three times what it should be costing and the provider is enjoying the ability to do this because nobody else is in the market space? I'm

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

Leaving aside from the question of if virus-infected DSNs are UBE and thus "spam" or not... Todd Vierling wrote: If you want to notify someone about a filtered malware instance, notify the intended *recipient*, and provide that user with the email address of the alleged sender. If it's a fa

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

Douglas Otis wrote: On Dec 9, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Todd Vierling wrote: None of these are my problem. I am a non-involved third party to the malware detection software, so I should not be a party to its outgoing spew. I have not requested the virus "warnings" (unsolicited), they are being se

Let's talk about ICANN

I'm surprised that I've yet to see any mention here on NANOG about the Internet Governance Forum discussions that were held at the WSIS / United Nations summit in Tunisia a few weeks ago. From my reading of the various articles, it appears that the EU together with some developing nations wanted

Re: Let's talk about ICANN

Hannigan, Martin wrote: I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG? I strongly believe the WSIS news was disturbing and of significant operational interest - what would have happened if the UN simply "decided" that ICANN shouldn't keep the powers it now has and "decided" to create a n

Re: Two Tiered Internet

Hannigan, Martin wrote: but do i get "the Internet"? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that "users" are not paying the full boat. Internet end-users are paying a larger share of the costs of the system than broadcast radio or TV end-users are paying (which here in the US is

Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change?

Bill Nash wrote: Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category. Examples would include: Working enterprise-scale spam filteri

Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

J.D. Falk wrote: On 03/01/05, David Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I'm no player in this league and ask... Why will ISP's ""wise up"" and block 587? If 587 is always auth'ed; then there will be no spam splashback provoking calls to block it. (Individual customers may get zombie

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

Patrick Muldoon wrote: What is more stable where you are, your broadband connection or your telephone line to your LEC? (if you still have one). I know in my case at home, the phone line was much more reliable, then my cable modem. I can count the times on 1 hand that I had been without Dial tone

Re: public accessible snmp devices?

Jim Popovitch wrote: On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:18 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: My RFC collection tells a different story. My experiences show that no complete segment of business, education, or government ever implements systems and networks according to holistic RFC thinking. YMMV. The imp

Re: Dear Linksys: Your broken WET54GS5 makes me sad.

Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:21 CEST]: In this case, I do. It's a consumer product. One way to solve this problem, and recognize that many IP network operators sell service to consumers as well as peering, would be to offer the inet-access mailing list to c

Re: Jonathan Yarden @ TechRepublic: Disable DNS caching on workstations

Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Depends on what you call "caching". Does honoring a TTL qualify as caching? What other kind of DNS caching is there? There's an article on /. today about providers (apparently there are quite a lot of them

Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?

Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: I think your argument is at best uninformed, at worst non-existent.. you need to provide some references, examples, figures, whatever.. else this is little more than trolling. Not only that... since there isn't anything operational in nature about the question or discus

Re: Major Labels v. Backbones

On 08:43 AM 8/19/02, Jeff Ogden wrote: >I am also concerned that the backbone providers might not put up a >rigorous fight against the RIAA since they would mostly be defending >the rights of people and organizations that they don't do business >with directly. I can imagine that Worldcom may

RE: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)

On 03:07 PM 8/26/02, Barry Shein wrote: >Let me throw out the following to show how blind the technical >community has been: > > There is no RFC or other public standards document which even attempts > to define spam or explain, in a careful and professional manner, > why it is a bad thi

Re: Praise to XO's Security/Abuse

01.244.240]) > by wellington.cnchost.com > id QAA27406; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:53:15 -0400 (EDT) > [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] >Errors-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM W

Re: Praise to XO's Security/Abuse

40]) > by tonnant.cnchost.com > id FAA08735; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:27:57 -0400 (EDT) > [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] >Errors-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eu

Re: Wireless insecurity at NANOG meetings

On 07:19 AM 9/23/02, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >>I can't say without a sniffer, but I'd bet that most NANOG participants are >>doing the same: SSH or IPsec VPN's back to home (wherever that is). > >Experience doesn't support this, I fear. How many passwords were >captured last time? Passw

Re: More federal management of key components of the Internet needed

On 05:16 AM 10/24/02, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: > >Alan Hannan wrote: >> >> > I don't understand how giving the US federal government management control >> > of key components of the Internet will make it more secure. >> >> It worked for airline security. > >Sure, searching Ray Charles makes me feel

Re: Sugestions for a colocation equipment check-list

On 07:11 PM 10/23/02, Mike (meuon) Harrison wrote: > >On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Dan Lockwood wrote: > >> Does anyone have a list of criteria that is collected when a customer >> brings equipment into a colocation facility? Things may include make >> and model, number of power supplies, serial number,

Re: OT. - The end of inet-access

At 11:51 AM 01/13/2003 -0900, you wrote: > >Just wondering if anyone here has some info ? >Any idea if the final nail is in inet-access ? If there is a rumor going around that the end of inet-access is near, someone forgot to tell me anything about it. The inet-access list is alive and well, w

Re: OT. - The end of inet-access

At 05:04 PM 01/13/2003 -0500, Andy Dills wrote: >Another possible reason inet-access is more on-topic is because JC's ten >times more dictatorial than Susan. She doesn't care if you've been posting >for 7 years, if you annoy her, you're gone unless you do what she tells >you to. But I'm bitter an

joining the inet-access list

At 01:57 PM 01/13/2003 -0900, W.D.McKinney wrote: > >Thanks for taking the time to help me today. I am subscribed again >and I apologize for sending the wrong signal to NANOG today. >Operator error *again*. You are very welcome Dee. We are happy to have you back on the list! And all is not los

Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)

Charles Sprickman wrote: Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being put into a widely-blocked block. The suggestion of putting Yahoo or Google on a 69/8 IP led me to this idea: Google could

Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:44:11PM -0800, JC Dill wrote: Charles Sprickman wrote: Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being put into a widely-blocked block. The

Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)

Miss Rothschild wrote: On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically, it's just a convenient place to butt in) Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you. Please post with a gender-specific name if you want

Re: How to Blocking VoIP ( H.323) ?

Joe Shen wrote: How could it be done to block VoIP at access router? "I urge all my competitors to do this." jc

Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

Alex Rubenstein wrote: We're not in school, we don't need suspensions. We need to act like adults, use this list for it's intended purpose. If someone is a dodo for a message or two here or there, then, well, we tolerate it and move on, maybe someone on the list sends that person an email saying

Re: Looking for advice on datacenter electrical/generator

Bill Woodcock wrote: > Backhoes always so far. > - The gas gets cut off immediately in any fire situation, usually > affecting a few city blocks at a time When was the last time you saw a fire that affected a few city blocks? I'm sure gas would be cut off in the event of a fire of that mag

Re: OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd)

Jack Bates wrote: Petri Helenius wrote: Isn´t "highlight and hit delete" exactly what has been implemented since Mozilla 1.3 and works with almost perfect accuracy after you give it a few dozen messages to build up the "good and bad" database with? Actually, I find that 1.3 and 1.4 still have is

Re: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch

Leo Bicknell wrote: * Make sure your mail servers are squeeky clean. Forward and reverse match, valid MX's, they report their own name in SMTP headers, no "untrusted sender used -f", etc. Valid abuse@ for the machine name, and the parent domain are essential. Valid contacts for the domai

Re: Cisco IOS Vulnerability now in the news

At 11:00 AM 7/17/2003, Henry Linneweh wrote: July 17, 2003 DoS Flaw in Cisco Router, Switches By Ryan Naraine http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/2236591 Cisco Admits Flaw in Networking Software By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer

Re: User negligence?

At 01:03 AM 7/27/2003, Kandra Nygårds wrote: From: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unfortunately there are a lot, and growing number, of self-infected PCs > on the net. As the banks point out, this is not a breach of the bank's > security. Nor is it a breach of the ISP's security. The user

Re: User negligence?

At 07:21 AM 7/27/2003, David Lesher wrote: Strip is your helper here. I have strip. Unfortunately, I don't always have my Palm at hand when I want to login to my bank, and I didn't have it at hand the *last* time, when I had to change the password, so the new

Re: Its not just Spam and DDOS anymore (was Re: OT: Re: User negligence?)

At 01:00 AM 7/29/2003, Peter Gray wrote: For a laugh, take a look at this spammer site, www.ushplans.com, currently hosted by Net Access Corporation. It claims to be "US Health Plans Inc., The Nations (sic) Leading Dental Plan" but its head office appears to be a mail drop box in New Jersey an

Re: Complaint of the week: Ebay abuse mail (slightly OT)

At 09:41 AM 8/3/2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > ... ebay now requires that you fill in their lovely little web form to > send them a note. Even if, say, you're trying to let them know about > another scam going around that tries to use the machine www.hnstech.co.kr > to extract people's credit card inf

Re: Complaint of the week: Ebay abuse mail (slightly OT)

At 12:53 PM 8/3/2003, Gerald wrote: I even went to the web page they suggested to try and give them a copy of the msg with full headers and none of their categories at the time matched: Good willed person trying to give you ammunition for a company abusing your name. I gave up, and left it as the

RE: Microsoft to ship new versions with firewall enabled

At 10:00 AM 8/14/2003, Daniel Senie wrote: At 12:39 PM 8/14/2003, Matthew Watkins wrote: Apple have the right idea... I'd say all the vendors need to take a carefully balanced approach to security in the default configurations of their software. Leave services exposed to the network disabled by d

Re: East Coast outage?

At 02:03 PM 8/14/2003, K. Scott Bethke wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/power.outage/index.html Looks like we lost the Niagara-Mohawk power grid This looks pretty much like the same thing that happened (one failure causes cascading switch failures as the power overloads adjacent switches,

Re: East Coast outage?

At 08:13 PM 8/14/2003, David Lesher wrote: Then run parts at 105-110% and it gets really hard. The power industry designs a grid that runs so close to capacity that if^W when something big fails, the whole grid shuts down in a cascade. They know it: "What happens if <$big_num_watts> power plan

Re: Email virus protection

At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote: There's quite a lot of usable stuff out there. Many Win32 users have switched to Mozilla which seems to solve 100% of the Outlook-specific attacks which account for... hmmm... 100% of the malicious email messages of the last 6 months. Unfortunately

Re: Email virus protection

Warning, this is an off-topic rant about client software and the state of the world WRT Windows and Linux. There is zero operational content in this post. At 06:07 PM 8/20/2003, Lou Katz wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:46:48PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > > At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Kar

Re: www.ebay.com down?

At 10:12 PM 8/20/2003, Mehmet Akcin wrote: We were unable to process your request We are sorry, but we were unable to process your request. Please check the eBay Announcement Board for updates on recent and upcoming changes, major system issues, and other important eBay news. however I was unable

Re: email virus ==> over the top

At 08:10 AM 8/21/2003, neal rauhauser wrote: No one loves me and I don't get much email from the folks who tolerate me. I just got back from having lunch with some guys who tolerate me and I found scads of messages from all over -the funniest among the bunch for our Nanog readers: @cisco.com @ta

Re: Microsoft distributes free CDs in Japan to patch Windows

At 04:03 PM 8/25/2003, Andy Walden wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Henry Linneweh wrote: > Microsoft has a task scheduler that people should learn to use to remind > them to check update to make sure their patches are current, it is > located in the control panel and labled Scheduled Tasks and has an

RE: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?

At 11:19 AM 8/27/2003, Matthew Zito wrote: I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice or suggestions on shipping heavy/bulky equipment (~300 pounds, about a half-rack worth of gear) on short notice cross-country? We're obviously looking to minimize cost, but realistically it can't be in

Re: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?

At 08:32 PM 8/27/2003, Eric Kuhnke wrote: http://colofinder.net/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album18 Although this is a small item, I believe it wins the contest for "Most thoroughly damaged shipment". Oh dear! Yes, I do think you are the winner (so far). just me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:53 PM 8/28/2003, Tony Hain wrote: Matthew Crocker wrote: > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use > the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? Look carefully at that question and find the logic error. ... In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'I

RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic

At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote: > No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based > eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for > unwanted bandwidth across your network.. The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you use', not what so

Blaster author identified, about to be arrested...

(08-28) 20:31 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI has identified a teenager as the author of a damaging virus-like infection unleashed on the Internet and plans to arrest him early Friday, a U.S. official confirmed Thursday. The 18-year-old, whose name and hometown was not immediately available, w

Re: Fun new policy at AOL

At 08:37 AM 8/29/2003, Jack Bates wrote: Michel Py wrote: If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line theyshould provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't. The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle abuse complaints either. Just what do the

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote: > Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always. And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that instead."? Either the webmail solution meet

RE: Fun new policy at AOL

At 12:45 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote: > > > And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what > > about if the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail > > package. Use that instead."? > > You switch service provider or give

Re: Worst design decisions?

At 04:24 PM 9/18/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US Congress. "can you say ADA - sure you can" - Fred Rodgers > Who thought it was a good idea to put braille on the drive up atms? While I don't know if the person in question was blind or not, I *have* seen someone use a drive-up ATM from the

California Spam-busting bill comes with $1 million penalty

At 10:54 AM 9/24/2003, Timo Janhunen wrote: The Do Not Call registry is on hold... http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/ftc/donotcall92303ord.pdf Meanwhile, on the good news front: jc

Re: Any way to P-T-P Distribute the RBL lists?

At 07:08 AM 9/25/2003, Rich Braun wrote: But generating the blocklist requires real-time reporting back to a central server. Even if the server is decentralized, it will still require a relatively small handful of accessable IP addresses. I seem to recall a distributed server network, something c

RE: VeriSign Capitulates

At 07:17 AM 10/4/2003, St. Clair, James wrote: I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations. Be that as it may, this group is *anything* but "close knit". This is as unified as I've seen nanog participants on any matte

Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service]

At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Ouch. http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html VeriSign to revive redirect service by Declan McCullagh VeriSign will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming a controversial and temporarily suspended feature that redirected many .com a

Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29

Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and distribution committee. To recap: At NANOG 29 in Chicago, on Monday October 20th at 9:15 am a session on "VeriSign's Wildcard Record: Effects and Responses" will be held, with Mark Kosters and Matt Larson from VeriSign and Suzanne

Re: Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29

afterwards. Great idea! Can we count on Dan for tomato acquisition and for Owen for post-protest dispersal to a foodbank? jc (I so wish I could be there!) -- JC Dill 370 Altair #353 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 650-669-1664 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: UltraJCDill Y!IM: jcdill

Re: Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29

At 11:56 AM 10/16/2003, Chris Strandt wrote: Maybe a "vote" at the end of the presentation would be better. After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting to see what the participants think of starting Site Finder again. Its not as press worthy... but it lets Verisign have th

Re: Fascinating interview with Verisign CEO

At 01:17 AM 10/17/2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote: http://news.com.com/2008-7347-5092590.html "Sclavos also says it's time to transfer the responsibility for operating the root servers from volunteers to the commercial sector. " No, it's time for ICANN to transfer the responsibility for operating th

Re: Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest

At 08:53 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote: I'm fairly certain that the telco huts or CO's have to accomodate multiple groups having access, so I'd bet that a padlock probably is a tough sell There are special latches that accommodate multiple padlocks, where unlocking any one padlock opens the latch. They

Re[2]: Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest

At 12:30 PM 11/3/2003, Richard Welty wrote: how long do you think it'll take anyone to notice the extra locks? The link I posted showed a *latch* for a door (which could also be used on a gate if desired), not a series of locks on a chain to chain shut a gate. With a latch such as this one, you

Re: Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest

At 07:32 PM 11/3/2003, John Fraizer wrote: On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Owen DeLong wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't > see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks. Um, cutting a lock out gets it out of the mix but, you still have to have

  1   2   >