With a large enough userbase, misdirected spam complaints become far
less of a factor.
Lets put it this way .. one or two users can forget and report the
same email as spam. If a whole bunch of users do that, not just a
few, then either two things.
1. You have a problem
or
2. There's a mass ou
For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more
often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then
want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story.
--Original Message--
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
To: M
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson
wrote:
>
> SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time
> now so it would seem that they're not honoring them.
>
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goe
- Original Message -
From: "Erik (Caneris)"
To: "Joe Abley" ; "Micheal Patterson"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Ditto. They appear to use some strange form of greylisting combined with
blocking. What seems to help is SPF
They are accepting them by the 250 code, but never endup on the user mailbox.
This was just within the last week.
Fun Fun
--Original Message--
From: Micheal Patterson
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 6:27 PM
This may be old news, but I've
Ditto. They appear to use some strange form of greylisting combined with
blocking. What seems to help is SPF and PTRs that match the EHLO your MTAs will
send. We didn't implement Domain Keys / DKIM.
On a related note, don't get me started on Hotmail. They used to (still do?)
silently swallow m
i ran into the same issue pulled my hair out for a little bit. Make
sure you have domain keys / dkim and spf implemented on your mail
servers and domains. Once I did that all was smooth sailing.
Carlos Alcantar
Race Technologies, Inc.
101 Haskins Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P: 650.246.890
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo
blocking / deferring legitimate emails?
Yes. Everybody else.
Joe
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time. At
any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking / deferring
legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one of the
companies that we recently purchased has Yahoo hostin
How much "scheduled" downtime was there?
---Chris
On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote:
In a "Former Life" we used Comcast for transport for a school
corporation.
In the 3 years we used them we have 10 minutes of unscheduled
downtime.
Justin
Switches like this and the force10 2410 and the like are cut through so do sub
micro second versus a 'regular' store and forward switch
--Original Message--
From: Holmes,David A
To: Deric Kwok
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: switch speed question
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 1:03 PM
Arista claims
For Lunar Pages: 1-877-586-2772 or, 1-714-521-8150 (US/Canada)
For CA Regional Intranet: 1-888-221-5902 x2
Jay Murphy
IP Network Specialist
NM Department of Health
ITSD - IP Network Operations
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851
"We move the information that moves your world."
NANOG 46 Call for Presentations
==
The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold its
46th meeting June 14-17, 2009 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. NANOG 46 will be hosted by Comcast. The NANOG
Program Committee is now seeking proposals for Presentations,
Does anyone have a contact for either of these two companies, we are seeing
some routing issues somewhere on their network and would like to contact
their network engineers. I have tired all contacts listed on their whois as
well as their general support phone number to no avail.
67.210.117.
We were using PMTUD. However:
1) The link was iBGP and was done via crossever with both having default MTU
2) I tried disabling PMTUD with no difference
3) Cisco admitted it was a known bug, and downreving it to 12.4(15)T
resolved the issue.
Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd
OTA M
Are you using PMTUD?
We saw this on a couple of our route reflectors and on one occasion
picked it up in a capture. So I can say that the issue is due to bad
packets being sent, rather than an inaccurate error. It can be reported
differently according to where the corruption occurs (e.g. un
Once upon a time, Roy said:
> I think your math is faulty. While there may be 24G going in and 24G
> going out, there is only 24G crossing the backplane. You can't count a
> bit twice (once on in and once on out). Its the same bit.
Not every bit in results in just one bit out. Broadcast, mult
Eric Gearhart wrote:
>
>
> Note that the traffic to a switch is bi-directional (full duplex) - so
> a 24 port gigabit switch can max out its 32 Gig backplane, if all 24
> ports have a gig coming in and going out (24 X 2 is 48, more than the
> 32 gig backplane).
>
>
>
I think your math
Arista claims to have the fastest 1/10 Gig 24 and 48 port 1RU switch,
with a backplane capacity guaranteeing 10 Gig full duplex line rate per
port.
Cisco's CEF is local only and functions to download the arp cache and
routing table into ASICs for hardware switching; but look at Cisco's
NSF/SSO fo
That isn't always true. Some switches are already speced as full. It's
best to read the product docs or speak with a rep to be sure.
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Gearhart"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: switch speed question
On Tue,
I ran into exactly the same thing during a code upgrade a few weeks ago.
I wrote it off as a bug in BGP and backed off the code until a new release was
out. I was also running 12.4(22)T
On an NPE-G2.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Renaud RAKOTOMALALA [mailto:ren...@rakotomalala.com]
S
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It depends on how heavily loaded your switch is expected to be, for instance
> two machines using the switch will be able to get a full 1Gbps, however
> depending on the backplane (switching fabric), it limits how many ports will
> re
Yep, got a reply from cisco. It's a cisco bug:
" CSCsj36133
Internally found severe defect: Resolved (R)
Invalid header length BGP notification when sending withdraw
The router that is running the affected software generates enough
withdraws to fill an entire BGP update message and can
Hello Matthew,
We changed the motherboard from cisco one of our from 7206VXR (NPE-G1)
to 7206VXR (NPE-G2).
Due to incompability with the IOS 12.3(4r)T3 we upgraded this IOS to
12.4(12.2r)T. At the end we've got the same problem as you between one
of our 7200 in 12.3 and the new one in 12.4 .
One of our upstream providers flapped this morning, and since then they are
sending corrupted BPG data. I'm running 12.4(22)T on cisco 7200s. I'm
getting no BGP errors from that providers and the number of routes and basic
sanity check looks okay. However, when it tries to redistribute the bgp
rout
Status Update
2/24/2009
Many of our users had difficulty accessing Gmail today. The problem is now
resolved and users have had access restored. We know how important Gmail is to
our users, so we take issues like this very seriously, and we apologize for the
inconvenience.
-henry
_
People were nice to point out that my memory does function correctly,
but I did receive a single suggestion to spark the fire back to life in
my brain. The suggestion was ISIS for infrastructure only, and iBGP for
carrying all customer routes, which will lower the ISIS costs during a
state chan
I guess gmail is working everywhere on the globe again.
We encountered the same problems here in Austria (web, imap was working all
the time), too, but everything seems to be fine at the moment.
Greets from the snowy Tyrol,
Bernd
-Original Message-
From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:lu...@ne
In Germany was down as well, but now works fine again.
Luigi
On Feb 24, 2009, at 13:16 , Sarunas Vancevicius wrote:
The web interface is down in Ireland too.
But IMAP access is working fine.
On 12:12, Tue 24 Feb 09, Tobias Bartholdi wrote:
yup, down in switzerland too...
-Original Messa
The web interface is down in Ireland too.
But IMAP access is working fine.
On 12:12, Tue 24 Feb 09, Tobias Bartholdi wrote:
> yup, down in switzerland too...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr]
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 12:12
> To: Hank
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Murtaza wrote:
Problem was seen here in Pakistan too. But, now its ok as I am
sending this
email :).
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Stefan wrote:
Only account-level failure - same system, using different browsers,
going after different accounts - fails one
Problem was seen here in Pakistan too. But, now its ok as I am sending this
email :).
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Stefan wrote:
> Only account-level failure - same system, using different browsers,
> going after different accounts - fails one in three.
>
> Stefan
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at
Only account-level failure - same system, using different browsers,
going after different accounts - fails one in three.
Stefan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Christian Schmuck wrote:
> There is a notice on the Gmail support page (http://mail.google.com/support/):
>
> Status Update
> 2/24/2009
There is a notice on the Gmail support page (http://mail.google.com/support/):
Status Update
2/24/2009
We're aware of a problem with Gmail affecting a number of users. This problem
occurred at approximately 1.30AM Pacific Time. We're working hard to resolve
this problem and will post updates as
yup, down in switzerland too...
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr]
Sent: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2009 12:12
To: Hank Nussbacher
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Gmail down?
Indeed, down for me too, from France:
% telnet mail.google.com http
Trying 72.
Indeed, down for me too, from France:
% telnet mail.google.com http
Trying 72.14.221.19...
Connected to googlemail.l.google.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0
Host: mail.google.com
[Nothing]
-Hank
The short answer is "NO". L2 IS-IS is a single SPF domain and all routers
are supposed to have identical view of the network. If you want
IS-IS-provided aggregation, you need to use L1 and L2.
There are only two protocols that allow unlimited levels of aggregation: BGP
and EIGRP :)
Ivan
http:/
Hi,
It depends on how heavily loaded your switch is expected to be, for instance
two machines using the switch will be able to get a full 1Gbps, however
depending on the backplane (switching fabric), it limits how many ports will
receive full 1Gbps when the switch is congested, e.g. a 2 gig backpl
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> I'd be very pleased to know about the other lists, especially as in
> previous years I've always come up against brick walls - "you're not big
> enough, go away" or "we don't know you, go away". Not especially
> helpful, especially as the lat
Meta: I'm one of the mailop list admins...
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 07:50 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Anybody actually on that list? Most of the serious mailops work is on
> some other, entirely different lists.
There are almost 400 on the list now, and it grows with every single
mention
41 matches
Mail list logo
