On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Eric Gearhart wrote:
I hate to be pedantic but is this something that should get forwarded
to NANOG? I guess the relevance is justified because a lot of network
folks run Nagios...?
As long as network operators related vulns don't start showing up every
couple of months
On 2/25/09, Barry Shein wrote:
> On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> wrote:
> > Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
> > loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
> > sign up to it and then bit
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
> avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
> the same source before firing it back as spam.
And the trouble is - that can and will be gamed by "hori
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
>
> Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
> loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
> sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique
>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Paul M. Moriarty wrote:
>
> Whenever I see the words "best practice" I find my self wondering, "Best for
> who?"
>
For us, email hosting / mailbox providers, its kind of a shared best
practice evolved in MAAWG meetings and elsewhere.
What works for us may or may
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein
wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how
much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored
the
spam button unless two (to pick
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop
> which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from
> legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you
> and dad last week" From joe blow, T
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
> > better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:23 PM, jamie rishaw wrote:
> srsly?
>
> I didnt find this OT, considering its scope.
>
> Want to dictate policy? Join the MLC.
>
> Till then, /dev/null
>
> thx
Thanks for the professional response there bud
Can someone from ethr.net please contact me off list?
Thanks,
--paulv
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
> better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
> spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
> the same sender (I know,
srsly?
I didnt find this OT, considering its scope.
Want to dictate policy? Join the MLC.
Till then, /dev/null
thx
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
pew pew
> Eric Gearhart wrote:
>
pew pew pew
--
Jamie Rishaw // .com.a...@j <- reverse it. ish.
[Impressive C-level Titl
Eric Gearhart wrote:
I hate to be pedantic but is this something that should get forwarded
to NANOG? I guess the relevance is justified because a lot of network
folks run Nagios...?
No, it's offtopic. I mean, CVE-2007-5803? Really? Even stranger, they
mention a CVE which is 2.x based, and the
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:01 +0100
> From: secur...@mandriva.com
> Reply-To: xsecur...@mandriva.com
> To: bugt...@securityfocus.com
> Subject: [ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
We ran into this issue where we where tagging emails with ***SPAM*** and
forwarding them on which got us blocked everyone once in a while pretty
annoying.
Carlos
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Schick [mailto:cha...@warp8.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:18 AM
To: nanog@nanog.or
On Feb 25, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
There is also the issue of weather the user trusts the opt out link,
I have been in discussions where data shows that most users don't
generally trust it.
Zaid
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows that
the vast m
that could occur when
a. student machines are botted (for institutions not blocking outbound
port 25)
b. student and alumni accounts are compromised by phishers
(both of these just for the purposes of sending spam from well
connected, reputable institutions.)
and then consumers really do
Brian Keefer wrote:
Regarding taking automatic action based on luser feedback, that is
ridiculous in my opinion.
It is that i.e., non-standard, but no more than many other things at Y!
Many of their internal mailing lists, for internal use only, get more spam
than actual mail.
Just another exa
I think a major reason why recipients click the 'Spam' button is because often
times its not obvious how to identify the opt out link in the email. You can
perhaps put the opt out link on the top of the email so that the user clicks
that instead of the 'Spam' button. There is also the issue of w
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
their email client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it)
that says "Unsubscribe?"
AOL sends its spam button fe
Outbound filtering is a good idea..however after investing lots of money on
hardware appliances (old company $100,000 on equipment to do just this...) you
realize you have more issues then solutions. Now you allow forwarded mail, and
as you stated most systems accept the messages into the queue
> Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
> integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
> their email client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it)
> that says "Unsubscribe?"
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF form
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:27 PM, 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?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one
Can somebody from Godaddy contact me off-list about a malicious domain
errantly listing our network as its DNS servers? Email to
ab...@godaddy has gone unanswered and we're getting hit pretty hard.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:01 +0100
From: secur...@mandriva.com
Reply-To: xsecur...@mandriva.com
To: bugt...@securityfocus.com
Subject: [ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
__
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands integrated
into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in their email
client, right next to "Spam" (or even in p
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:06:13 -0800
Fred Baker wrote:
> Data retention is discussed in section 5:
>
> > SEC. 5. RETENTION OF RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE
> > PROVIDERS.
> > Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
> > at the end the following:
> > ‘(h
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:44:13 PST, JC Dill said:
> Universities are often major sources of spam. Spam is sent directly
> from virus-infected student computers,
Got any numbers to back up the claim that virus-infected student computers
are anywhere near the problem that virus-infected student's-
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Schick"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding
email to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spa
Barry Shein wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like th
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Shein"
To:
Cc: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" ; "Micheal Patterson"
;
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 ste...@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
> For our userbase
Peter Pauly wrote:
I'm looking to buy several small wall mounted UPS's to power a telco's
metro ethernet switches. (Yes, they should have provided some kind of
protection, but won't).
The closest suitable UPS I've found is this:
http://www.tripplite.com/EN/products/model.cfm?txtSeriesID=419&EID
Hi,
I'm rsrching the Peering Wars of 1998...anyone able to provide info wd be
greatly appreciated.
Nancy Paterson
YorkU
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding email to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded where
the enduser reports it as spam not realizing the impact on their actions.
In the last couple of years we have been not allowing people to forward
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 ste...@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
> 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
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?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one of
the companies that we recently
Maybe its me...but I don't recall seeing a 'this is spam button' for Postini. I
know there is an email you can report spam to, but I doubt there is an
automated process for it. I have had great success with Postini thus far and
have used them for a few years.
-r
-Original Message-
Fro
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
>
> I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one user
> classing mail as spam automatically means it marks all other mail from that
> user to everyone else. There really outta be some transparency here so that
> everyone understands the how and
Seth Mattinen wrote:
In a perfect world, the spam button would only affect delivery to that
user, not everyone. Especially when they go all rabid click crazy on the
spam button for personal correspondence from their mom.
I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one
ha, funny you should say that; do a quick search for "plain language
of the statute" and let me know how many dissenting views in court
opinions you find.
Big fallacy to say that even though it's 'plain English' it means
*one* thing...
This is a big tangled web of statutory and common law
Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richey wrote:
>
>> AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
>> message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
>> news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would
>> rather
>>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
> Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands integrated
> into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in their email
> client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it) that says
> "Unsubscribe?"
Because
I am not a lawyer; I am a person that can read something that is
written in the English language, and considered by some to be a
"reasonable man". So please don't consider this to be legal advice.
Also, although I am posting from a Cisco account, this note represents
my understanding based
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
> level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
> low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spam complaints because a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richey wrote:
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would rather
click on the Spam button instead of un
We use a product similar to this:
http://www.rackmountsolutions.net/Wallmount_Rack_V_Series.asp
- d.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, ryan.sla...@tac.com wrote:
This is what we have used in the past.
http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BH500NET
Hope that helps.
On 2/25/09 9:05 AM, Richey wrote:
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would rather
click on the Spam button instead of unsu
This is what we have used in the past.
http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BH500NET
Hope that helps.
--
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:57:35 -0500
From: Peter Pauly
Subject: slightly OT: wall mount UPS for demarc
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID
As a lot of you probably heard about the agreement involving one of
the largest ISPs and the music industry ...
In the followup the music industry decided to threaten ALL ISPs in
Ireland:
http://blog.blacknight.com/irma-threatens-irish-isps.html
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Host
I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer:
It amends 18 U.S.C. §2703 which is entitled "Required Disclosure of
Customer Communications or Records" which refers to providers, not
home users...
Better question:
1) Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the commu
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and where it is
overwhelming. If you are a smaller company and want to know why you keep
getting blocked then those should help. If you are a larger company and get a
several hundred a day, but you send 100k emails to AOL then it is n
Sorry to intrude, but it is based on the reading of the law and at least
according to ars technica's article (
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/are-you-an-electronic-communication-service-provider.ars)
that excludes home routers. That's not to say it couldn't be reinterpreted
in the
> Feedback loops often aren't that useful either. We're on the AOL Scomp
> feedback loop, and we've often got fairly personal email sent to our
> abuse desk because the users simply press spam rather than delete.
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is
If it's at all like the EU Date Retention provisions, it would be in
the ISP, not the home router. The Danish want the moral equivalent of
a netflow trace for each user (log of the kind of information netflow
records for a session for each TCP/UDP/SCTP session the user initiates
or terminat
Hi Jim,
Avoiding the politics of this issue, I suspect that many more home users
will be affected than corporate or backbone admins. I already log all
access to my wireless, though currently I don't keep outgoing access logs
for that long. I suspect that if this were to become law, the logging
me
Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 26/02/2009, at 2:48 AM, David Barak wrote:
>> If two hosts are exchanging 1Gbps flows, the traffic across the bus
>> will be 2Gbps, right?
>
> You don't get to add transmit and receive together to get 48Gbps.
> Packets don't go across the backplane once to receive, and the
Another issue is civil rights. Do we want to create a surveillance society? It
has already happened to a large extent in the UK and the US, but this is
significant step forward ...
I'll leave it at that since I am writing on corporate email and I do not
represent my company on this issue.
Reg
After having a brief conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend
about this new proposed legislation I was horrified to find that I could not
dig anything up on it in NANOG. Surely this sort of short minded legislation
should have been a bit more thought through in its effects on those that
I'm looking to buy several small wall mounted UPS's to power a telco's
metro ethernet switches. (Yes, they should have provided some kind of
protection, but won't).
The closest suitable UPS I've found is this:
http://www.tripplite.com/EN/products/model.cfm?txtSeriesID=419&EID=361&txtModelID=3640
We pretty constantly are deferred on yahoo, and at one point had all
outbound mail for yahoo logged at the sender/recipient/subject/size
level to get an idea what was up.
In an experiment, I found that after being 'clean' (not being deferred)
for close to a week, simply sending myself 1 single
On hotmail's defense at least their support contacts will respond to your
emails. It may take a few rounds of proving that they are 'blackholing' your
email and them saying 'no were not'..but after a few times of that you know
exactly what to say when submitting a ticket to them (ie I sent this
Funny we were just having similar conversation on mailop.org :) . Suresh is
right about the feedback loops (you also should subscribe to
comcasts/hotmails/trend micro's (mail-abuse.com)). If you don't have an
external gateway that makes doing reports easy then they are a good way to find
out wh
On 26/02/2009, at 2:48 AM, David Barak wrote:
Doesn't that assume that the communicarion is unidirectional?
...
No.
If two hosts are exchanging 1Gbps flows, the traffic across the bus
will be 2Gbps, right?
Yes. 1Gbps backplane impact per host. You have two hosts, right? One
host per por
Were not considering anything other than basic switching in this
scenario, as is my understanding.
2 hosts will create 2gbps of traffic as each host is inputting 1gbps
into the switch (just multiply it by 12 to give you 24 ports). 3 hosts
will create 3gbps of traffic as each inputs 1gbps in
Doesn't that assume that the communicarion is unidirectional?
If two hosts are exchanging 1Gbps flows, the traffic across the bus will be
2Gbps, right?
And of course, this doesn't include any bus-intensive operations like
multicast
or things which require cpu processing - those can consume a l
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Niall Donegan wrote:
>
> Another interesting side effect of that is email forwarder accounts.
> Take a user who gets a domain on our shared hosting setup and forwards
> the email for certain users to a Yahoo account. If those mails are
> marked as spam, it seems to
> Not every bit in results in just one bit out. Broadcast, multicast,
> flooding for unknown MACs (or switching failures), ...
They were talking about a simple scenario where a bit that enters a port
will leave a port. With 24 gigabit ports, for all intents and purposes,
you will only ever have
68 matches
Mail list logo
