David Andersen wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:28 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It's much easier to
configure your backup MXen to not toss messages or send warning emails
after 4h than it is to politely ask all sending SMTP servers to do the
same.
-Dave
Apparently this has boile
Rob
Can a cisco 1600 run PPPoE?
I've never tried it, but if they can run 12.2, they should do PPPoE.
R
Only suitable one is the 1605R (because you would never dial on the same
ethernet that your lan is on right?)
20mb flash card and 16mb SIMM you have around and your up and running
quotes from wired interview with Mike Lynn
"
WN: So this new version of the operating system that they're coming out
with, that's in beta testing.
Lynn: It's actually a better architecture ... but it will be less
secure That's why I felt it was important to make the point now
rather tha
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NetBIOS was never meant to be a WAN protocol, so no problem
in blocking it.
rule #1: do not be the Internet's Firewall
rule #2: see rule #1
Surely we realize that this discussion is not concerning the oft
repe
Elvis DePaula wrote:
Anyone in the list has a good update on the IETF:draftietf-
idr-as4bytes-10.txt ?
Is the projection os AS Number exhaustion of 2011-2013 exaggerated or do
we really have a potential big problem with a slow solution ahead of us?
-Elvis.
Are you asking this after ha
If the hop(s) following the one you see loss for shows no loss, then
disregard the loss for that hop, obviously whatever it is, it does not
affect transit, which is what you really want to know.
Is that correct?
Network Fortius wrote:
And how exactly would you interpret the number returne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is quite clearly the case; there are dozens of mutual customers
who have forwarding rules setup. We are not generating Spam to send to
Bellsouth; it's coming from somewhere else and then being forwarded.
I imagine that at some time in the future, forwardi
Jay Adelson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:29:06AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
You also forgot that Providers A & B have to pay cab fare to get to
those geographically dispersed corners. One might have to take the
cab a lot longer than the other, incurring more time & money.
Y
Tony Li wrote:
It's just a mess. I think that we all can agree that a real locator/
identifier split is the correct architectural direction, but that's
simply not politically tractable. If the real message that the
provider community is trying to send is that they want this, and not
Tony Li wrote:
How is a split between locator / identifier any different logicaly
from the existing ipv4 source routing?
IPv4 source routing, as it exists today, is an extremely limited
mechanism for specifying waypoints along the path to the destination.
IOW the end stations were
Mike Leber wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
For example, if your goal was to have TCP-like sessions between
identifiers survive network events without globally propagating full
network topology information about your site (the gripe against classic
IPv4 BGP) you could have
How about something like this.
A chunk of ipv6 space is carved off. This is assigned to multihoming
desiring sites.
All routers {can | should } filter this space from their tables
completely by default - except the single prefix covering the entire space.
A customer with a prefix assigne
This is what I meant by suggesting that source routing was an original
attempt at a seperation from routing/locating and endpoint identifiers.
You can replace the concept of "source routing" in below with mpls TE,
l2tpv3 or any other suitable encapsulation mechanism.
The concept is that the
Owen DeLong wrote:
A customer with a prefix assigned from this chunk has to connect with an
ISP who has
* a Very Large Multihoming (to handle scaling concerns) router somewhere
in its network that peers to other ISP Very Large Multihoming routers.
ISP operating a VLMrouter to offer multiho
(apologies to Owen for CC'ng list, his points are valid concerns that I
hadnt addressed or considered properly)
Owen DeLong wrote:
c) Carry a much larger table on a vastly more expensive set of routers
in order to play.
ISPs who dont wish to connect these customers should feel free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:53:12 CDT, John Dupuy said:
In fact, this is technically feasible right now with IPv4. Does anyone know
of a pair of ISPs doing this?
"technically feasible" and "business case reasonable" are two different things.
Under what conditions do
Owen DeLong wrote:
Frankly, I think we need to show the Senate and the House a movie titled
"The Siege" and ask them if they really want to keep moving in this
direction.
Owen
The real secret is that hollywood designs these films expressly as
desensitizers, in cahoots with you-can-gue
Randy Bush wrote:
so a few of us are still looking at routing through the anycast
sunglasses. a particular probe is seeing instability [0] for
k.root-servers.net [1]. so we hop on to a router nearby, and
o this obscures their path to k1
o and, as they obey k0's NO_EXPORT, they can
Sam Crooks wrote:
One of those pesky legal notice on all my outgoing email gets filtered
by Randy's mail ... (the outgoing addition is not under my control)
maybe someone could tell him for me (as I can't email him...)
>you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal
>w
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Todd Vierling wrote:
1. Virus "warnings" to forged addresses are UBE, by definition.
This definition would be making at least two of the following assumptions:
1) Malware detection has a 0% false positive.
Near enough so that rej
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for my
Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate to
zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP addresses
stored in those registries for your nameserver are updated, otherwise
you will experience either immediate or future glue madne
Chris Woodfield wrote:
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per kilobit
than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow. And I have
seen cases of older line cards approaching their pp
Jay Hennigan wrote:
VoIP by design will have high PPS per connection as opposed to data flows.
At 20 ms sample rates you have 50 pps regardless of the CODEC or algorithm.
Increasing the time per sample to 40 ms would cut this in half but the
added
latency would result in degraded quality.
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Something about intelligent edges? The payload length of voip
applications often has a lot to do with rtt. Adapting payload length
to the actuall average rtt could have a positive effect on pps
throughput.
What is your
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 5 Dec 2004, at 06:50, Cliff Albert wrote:
I have one question regarding the CYMRU bogon route-server. What good
is
it if more-specific bogons are going around in the BGP table ?
With OpenBSD 3.6 running pf and bgpd,
Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Having just two addresses is the main problem, the fact that they're
also anycast just makes it even worse under certain circumstances.
How does anycast make it worse?
If both anycast routes converges to the same brok
Mark Bojara wrote:
Hello All,
If I wish to purchase a Cisco router that handles a full internet BGP
feed what are the minimum specs I should be looking at?
Regards
Mark Bojara
Somewhat on topic, saw this today
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/Bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCef51906
CSCef51906
Routing Table Analysis wrote:
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Routing Table Report 0
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I concur with the view expressed by Bob Fox (IANA-134), that the
"current method only favours Verisign and crooks."
The hijacking of panix.com, and the post-hijacking response of VGRS,
which could unilaterally act, but choses not
Andrew Brown wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 07:21:55PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 16.01 12:46, William Allen Simpson wrote:
--- Forwarded Message
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't see what you are looking at - .net and .com point to the same
place with no indi
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "william(
at)elan.net" writes:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Thus justifying those who load their NS and corresponding NS's A records
with nice long TTL
Although this wasn't a problem in t
David Barak wrote:
--- Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While it says that bogon filters change, and
provides
a URL to check it, what percentage of folks who
would
use a feature like "autosecure" would ever upd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Easier said than done, especially if you're a small ISP that's been doing
POP before SMTP and changing this requires that every customer's settings
be changed.
drac http://mail.cc.umanitoba.ca/drac/
supports seperat
Joel Perez wrote:
I keep reading these articles and reports about this botnet and that
botnet problem and how many user's pc's are infected.
The only thing I don't see is a way to remove these bots!
Not everyone knows how to even look at their machines for signs of these
bots. Heck, I know most of
Miller, Mark wrote:
How come it is always about controlling the symptoms and not the
illness?
The illness is the user. That is uncontrollable.
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say
click
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 08:43:15AM +0900, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:55:04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
? My favorite quote is:
? "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial
messages that ? can flood email accounts by the hundreds a
chuck goolsbee wrote:
It's too bad that about 1/3 of the reported mails are valid opt-in
lists.
The other 1/3rd are actual spam, but legitimately forwarded as the
user requested from a personal or business domain to an AOL account.
Any server in the path gets tagged as a spam source.
I believ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
with large roaming user populations to support RF
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587?
Give a good reason. That is still the missing part.
For the above popu
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In actuality, *I* am not QUITE as draconian as suggested a couple of
paragraphs previously. If I forward somebody's mail and get a complaint
from the reciveing system about spam to that user, "originating" from my
system, that user *permanently* loses any forwarding privil
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:36:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, OK. If you know for a *fact* that your users *never* roam, and you
have sufficiently good control of your IP addresses that you can always safely
decide if a given connection is "inside" or "outside"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:02:20PM -0700, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:14 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two
ports is closer to y*2 than y (some might a
Barry Shein wrote:
On March 1, 2005 at 14:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Segrave) wrote:
> I don't understand this complaint - we process AOL TOS Notifications
> daily and I find perhaps 1 in a hundred or so are not valid complaints.
Here about 99% are not valid or interesting.
Which is to say, I had
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our
netblocks appears to be filtered somewhere inside their network,
preventing DNS lookups from completing, thus preventing e-mail from
being delivered.
Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that you
have engineered a single point of failure in your netw
Josh Vince wrote:
Here's what APC has to say about it:
http://nam-en.apc.com/cgi-bin/nam_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=jTAq9iAh&p_lva=&p_faqid=1372&p_created=1010390400&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTM4NyZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXN1cmdlIGludG8gVVBTJnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9MyZwX3Byb2Rfb
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:52:56 -0500 (EST), Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thank $DEITY for large ISPs running open resolvers on fat pipes ..
those do come in quite handy in a resolv.conf sometimes, when I run
into this sort of behavior.
--srs
Slightly OT to
vijay gill wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:13:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can
do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
randy
try 172.128.1.1
/vijay
Wouldnt 172.15.255.254 and 172.32.0.1 do better at helping to nail dow
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
[1] at least not until cisco adds a feature allowing you to ignore new BGP
routes for subnets of a bogon feed.
Last I understood from c-nsp this was a feature without much interest.
Is such a feature expected to arrive anytime soon? From any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:36:26AM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
er... common best practice for YOU... perhaps.
dnsreport.com is apparently someone who agrees w/ you.
and i know why some COMMERCIAL operators want to squeeze
every last lira from the
Chris Brenton wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 01:04, John Payne wrote:
And to Randy's point about problems with open recursive nameservers...
abusers have been known to cache "hijack". Register a domain,
configure an authority with very large TTLs, seed it onto known open
recursive nameservers, u
Brad,
I suspect and google confirms, that you know a whole lot more about this
than I do, so please have a little patience explaining this to me.
Brad Knowles wrote:
At 8:49 AM -0500 2005-03-29, Joe Maimon wrote:
1) Registrars being required to verify Authority in delegated to
nameservers
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joe Maimon:
How do spammers make step 5 succeed?
They delegate www.example.com instead of example.com?
I suspect I am some distance over the cliff here but nevertheless, onward.
I dont get it. That has nothing to do with the registrar, or dodging
forced deactivation of
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 4/27/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any event the malware is already ahead of port 25 blocking and is
leveraging ISP smarthosting. SMTP-Auth is the pill to ease this pain/
Really smtp-auth will solve it? or do most windows mua's cache your
password?
Dean Anderson wrote:
And if they aren't found by open-relay
blacklists, they aren't abused and there are no problems whatsoever.
How much credibility are you trying to lose?
Nicholas Suan wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 4/30/05, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ANantes-106-1-5-107.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr
You'll see 'abo' for 'cable', perhaps? as well as 'cable'. But for most
abo = short for "abonnement", that is, "subscription" / "subscriber"
Just
Yes it is kindof amazing how well it works..
Unlike others on this list I have never claimed to have any credibility.
I am just a small time op.
Dean Anderson wrote:
Using SORBS? just how much credibility do you want to lose?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:30
Steven Champeon wrote:
on Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
What does the rest of the internet gain when all IPs have boilerplate
reverse DNS setup for them, especialy with all these wildly differing
and wacky naming "conventions"?
I don't care what
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Luke Parrish wrote:
Andrew, traceroute is an effective tool is measuring roundtrip in ms
format.
packets sent to a router are typically processed differently and with
different priority then packets forwarded through it. This makes
traceroute fairly unre
Is there still justification for denying transit for ms-sql slammer ports?
Thanks,
Joe
Joe Maimon wrote:
Is there still justification for denying transit for ms-sql slammer ports?
Thanks,
Joe
Thanks all for your responses. To me it appears that
a) If you block 135/445 you should block slammer as well
b) If the number of potential infected hosts connected to your network
can
Matt Bazan wrote:
why in the world would anyone want to purchase dsl from a private
reseller when i can get 4mb down 384 up from comcast for $25? think you
dsl resellers out there are doomed. in fact, just a matter of time
before most of you isps are down the toilet. im reminded of the mom and
Pete Templin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is new to me, but I haven't bought any new transit in the past 18
months -- is
this common practice on multihomed BGP customers now? I could force
things to work
by always advertising all my prefixes out to them with the obvious
downside o
Joe Abley wrote:
On 2005-06-03, at 10:26, Andre Oppermann wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess it's been a while since I've played with it, but isn't this
pretty
well what happens with uRPF anyhow?
No, my proposal works as long as the customer advertizes their prefixes
via BGP,
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
model, with only a few big actors.
I don't know who these proponents are, that you re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similar concept, same scaling problems; it just hides the explicit
routing
from the user (as would any modern "peering" system, presumably).
One way that it COULD be implemented is for people accepting
incoming email on port 25 to check a whitelist before ac
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
the
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I guess I'll ask first...
There was a gentleman a while back that posited that having only two
anycast NS records was broken by design. Suggested that while servicing
the whole TLD from two NS that were really a little army of anycast
clusters all around out ther
Hello All,
I have been talking to "Company C' Tac trying to understand if this is a
problem.
(
For reference to some things mentioned here see
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk827/tk369/technologies_white_paper09186a00800d6979.shtml#subthirdtwo
)
1) C has a command to adjust the tcp mss option d
Sam Stickland wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Eric Kagan wrote:
Is anyone aware of a WIC card that will work with the lower end Cisco
gear
(1700 or 2600 series) that will allow me to terminate an ADSL or
preferably an SDSL line directly on the router? The idea being that the
router i
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
True, but yet another cop out.
If you're not part of the solution, .
- ferg
-- Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I wrote it, I stand beside it. I'm sick of hearing why people
haven't implemented it yet -- i
Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:12:55AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi Pekka and others,
Please send comments to me by the end of this week, either on- of
off-list, as you deem appropriate.
With the risk of stating the obvious I would say that normally, PMTUD
should do the t
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:12:55AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
With the risk of stating the obvious I would say that normally, PMTUD
should do the trick.
On todays internet everything is more
Sam Stickland wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:12:55AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi Pekka and others,
Please send comments to me by the end of this week, either on- of
off-list, as you deem appropriate.
With the risk of stating the
Leo Bicknell wrote:
I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
that I think is slipping under the radar right now.
The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 "private networks". Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
for the IPv6 world.
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
"Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " -
Simon J. Lyall.
Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose
Considering the amount of email traffic generated by responding to
forged virus laden email from culprits like sobig should email virus
scanning systems be configured to send notifications back to sender or not?
Joe Maimon wrote:
Considering the amount of email traffic generated by responding to
forged virus laden email from culprits like sobig should email virus
scanning systems be configured to send notifications back to sender or
not?
I guess we can summarise and say that:
(intelligent virus
Patrick Muldoon wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 August 2003 12:08 am, David Schwartz wrote:
One of my pet peeves is anti-virus programs that detect a virus by name,
so they should know that it always spoofs the sender address, still sending
messages
I want my root servers back
Matt Larson wrote:
Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net
zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from
10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
being added now. We have prepared a white paper de
Paul Vixie wrote:
... shouldn't they get to decide this for themselves?
Verisign has created a business out of fooling software through
failure to return a 'no such domain' indication when there is no such
domain, in breach of their public trust. As much as Verisign was
obligated not
Tony Rall wrote:
On Wednesday, 2003-12-03 at 09:38 PST, David Sinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(And note that frag 1 often is not the first fragment to arrive at
downstream nodes. In my example in (1), frequently frag 2 will reach
places before frag 1 does (if any router along the path
Barney Wolff wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:54:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:40:45 EST, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I was wondering would it not be wiser for fraggers to frag in half
instead of just the overflow?
There's 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:03:38 EST, Barney Wolff said:
That's not how PMTUD works. If DF is set, you discard the packet and
report back with ICMP. If DF is not set, you frag the packet - but
that's not PMTUD, because no report ever goes back to the sender.
Oh, s
Crist Clark wrote:
Joe Maimon wrote:
Tony Rall wrote:
On Wednesday, 2003-12-03 at 09:38 PST, David Sinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(And note that frag 1 often is not the first fragment to arrive at
downstream nodes. In my example in (1), frequently frag 2 will
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Crist Clark wrote:
Joe Maimon wrote:
Tony Rall wrote:
On Wednesday, 2003-12-03 at 09:38 PST, David Sinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(And note that frag 1 often is not the first fragment to arrive at
downstream nodes.
Blaxthos wrote:
hello,
i've been reading nanog-l/inet-access for many many years (just a shadow,
i don't post).
i am just curious... do you have any authority/commission from arin (or
anyone else)? or is yours a rogue vigilante mission? does anyone ask you
to undertake the battles you feel ju
Joe Maimon wrote:
Tony Rall wrote:
On Wednesday, 2003-12-03 at 09:38 PST, David Sinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was
wondering would it not be wiser for fraggers to frag in half instead
of just the overflow?
I noticed today this URL
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/produ
Rachel K. Warren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
- run on Windows,
Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any
M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Wind
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 08:58 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:
Why must systems accept mail that's virus laden or otherwise not
desired at a site?
The "bounce" you refer to invariably ends up going to the wrong
person(s), so that's an exceptionally BAD idea. Many viruses (most of
the recent ones) fo
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Joe Maimon [2/3/2004 8:43 PM] :
What you are saying is that every mailhost on the Internet should run
up to date and efficient virus scanning? Pattern matching and header
filtering? Should the executable attachmant become outlawed on the
Internet? Recognize
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 10:13 AM 2/3/2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 08:58 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:
Why must systems accept mail that's virus laden or otherwise not
desired at a site?
The "bounce" you refer to invariably ends up going to the wrong
person(s
Adi Linden wrote:
Does anyone have any resources on building a mail relay that would limit
the amount of email a single user or ip address can relay over a given
time period?
I have a spam/virus problem that is getting out of hand.
Adi
Has anyone tested sendmail 8.13alpha, in specific it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings NANOGers,
Yesterday we starting noticing long delays on an ADSL connection.
Assuming it is not your ISP or that the telco is the ISP.
Dont believe them. Tell them to reset the port. Tell them to change the
pairs. Tell them to switch your line to a diffe
Douglas F. Calvert wrote:
What more is known about the mail sender or ssh client
just because the reverse address lookup goes through?
You have a clue as to who their ISP thinks they are...for starters. Also
its easier on the eyes in the logfiles.
Anyone care to give their thoughts on the
Petri Helenius wrote:
Joe Provo wrote:
I have heard the 'assymetric cost/benefit' rationale for the
bad laziness (sloppiness, not the larry wall-esque 'good' laziness of
automation) on and off the last few years. Similarly, I have heard
about the tremendous cost of sloppiness and human error
Jeff Workman wrote:
--On Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:45 PM -0400 Joe Maimon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Therefore the "good" people should beat the bad people to the punch and
write the worm first. Make it render the vulnerable system invulnerable
or if neccessary crash it/disa
Joe Abley wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004, at 04:09, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
That was solved 6 years ago. You let them use port 587 instead of 25.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html
There's a slight wrinkle with that for people who want to submit mail
over SSL.
Several graphical, consumer-
Matthew Sullivan wrote:
You will note my post before Christmas about the up and coming
whitelisting mechanism - I am still collecting details for people
wanting to use it - unfortunately for a variety of reasons the
whitelisting mechanism is still not ready to go public.
Yours
Matthew
Sp
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
