"We recognize that some legitimate senders will be challenged by this
change and forced to update how they send mail and we sincerely regret
the inconvenience to you."
No they don't.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/23/2014 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote:
>>
>> Thought
On 4/23/2014 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote:
Thought i would throw this out there.
http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2014/04/22/aol-mail-updates-dmarc-policy-to-reject/
Bet THAT will get Yahoo's attention!
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
Thought i would throw this out there.
http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2014/04/22/aol-mail-updates-dmarc-policy-to-reject/
-Grant
Hi,
In April 2014, ICANN updated the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry
to reflect the return of 14 /24 prefixes (5,376 IPv4 addresses) by the RIPE
NCC. The updated registry can be found at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
ICANN
I
Not sure what platform you are working with but does the ONS-SC+-10G-C ppm help
in your situation?
Check out:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/optical-networking/ons-15454-series-multiservice-provisioning-platforms/data_sheet_c78-713296.html
- Ed
On Apr 21, 2014, at 14:57, Tim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
Anyone from Suddenlink on this list? If so, please contact me unicast.
I'm seeing some very significant issues originating in your network
core and want to get them sorted out. The normal channels haven't been
helpful. Yes I'm a downstream
On 22 Apr 2014, at 22:49, George Herbert wrote:
> Any number of enterprises have chosen that if a DDOS or other advanced
> attack is going to be successful, to let that be successful in bringing
> down a firewall on the external shell of the security envelope rather than
> having penetrated to t
On 04/22/2014 01:49 PM, George Herbert wrote:
As long as the various stateful firewalls and IDS systems offer hostile
action detection and blocking capabilities that raw webservers lack,
there are certainly counterarguments to the "port filter only" approach
being advocated here.
Right, but now
As long as the various stateful firewalls and IDS systems offer hostile
action detection and blocking capabilities that raw webservers lack, there
are certainly counterarguments to the "port filter only" approach being
advocated here.
Focusing only on DDOS prevention from one narrow range of attac
On 04/22/2014 01:15 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
I wouldn't manage a corporate network without a centrally managed firewall
(stateful; or not).
Matthew,
No one is saying that. What Roland is saying, and the position that I
agree with, is that putting a firewall in front of a system _that is
inte
I should have clarified that better. I wouldn't manage a corporate network
without a centrally managed firewall (stateful; or not). Depending on host
security alone, especially Windows desktops, isn't something I would care to be
a part of. Some IPv6 pundits have pushed the idea of re-establishi
On 04/22/2014 12:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Roland's saying basically:
1) if you deploy something on 'the internet' you should secure that something
2) the securing of that 'thing' should NOT be be placing a stateful
device between your users and the 'thing'.
In a simple case of:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> I think some of the disconnect is the difference between a provider network
> and a corporate one.
>
> For example, www.foo.com if it is highly visible and has a high traffic rate
> would have load balancers and line rate routers, but no st
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
> Eric,
>
> If you read what he posted and really believe that is what he is saying, you
> need to re-think your career decision. It is obvious that he is not saying
> that.
>
Roland's saying basically:
1) if you deploy something on 'the i
Eric,
If you read what he posted and really believe that is what he is saying, you
need to re-think your career decision. It is obvious that he is not saying that.
I hate it when threads breakdown to this type of tripe and ridiculous
restatement of untruths.
- Brian
> -Original Message---
If anyone want to provide me with *useful* troubleshooting information,
I'll be glad to help.
I can't tell what use that website has, it offers zero detail.
-Steve
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:03 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
>
> Looks like they are having issues other than Atlanta.
>
> http://
It seems to me you are saying we should get rid of firewalls and rely on
applications network security.
This is so utterly idiotic I must be misunderstanding something.There are a
few things we can count on in life, death, taxes, and application developers
leaving giant security holes in th
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. ;)
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Steve Clark
Date: 04/22/2014 11:48 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Paul WALL
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US patent 5473599
On 04/22/2014 01:30 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
> On Tuesda
On 04/22/2014 01:30 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
up on what happened.
"carp causing outages" however is nothing
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
> plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
> up on what happened.
>
> "carp causing outages" however is nothing short of a lie. carp
> announces it
Looks like they are having issues other than Atlanta.
http://downdetector.com/status/comcast-xfinity/map
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:06:35 -0500
Blair Trosper wrote:
I'm being inundated with reports from Comcast customers in various
markets
about their inability to reach anything on AWS. For exa
* Ryan Shea [2014-04-22 16:24]:
> along with OpenNTPd, OpenBGPd - which
> probably have similar standards non-compliance
I wrote both of them, they are as standards compliant as it gets.
we would have implemented vrrp if it hadn't been patent encumbered.
in the end, that was even good, since ca
I won't waste time on your uninformed ramblings, you have the facts
plain wrong. There is enough material on the net for everybody to read
up on what happened.
"carp causing outages" however is nothing short of a lie. carp
announces itself as vrrp version 3. anything trying to parse it as
vrrp2 wi
* Nick Hilliard [2014-04-22 15:33]:
> On 22/04/2014 12:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > it does NOT cover carp, not at all.
> that is a political statement rather than a legal opinion. If you read the
> patent, it's pretty obvious that when you have a group of carp-enabled
> devices providing a stab
At least it's not a Friday or a holiday. :)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:19 AM, John Neiberger wrote:
> Yep, that does seem to be the problem.
>
> John
> On Apr 22, 2014 8:17 AM, "Joshua McDonald" wrote:
>
>> Not sure what the connectivity is between Comcast and AWS, but Level3
>> is having issue
Yep, that does seem to be the problem.
John
On Apr 22, 2014 8:17 AM, "Joshua McDonald" wrote:
> Not sure what the connectivity is between Comcast and AWS, but Level3
> is having issues in Atlanta.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 22, 2014, at 10:07, Blair Trosper
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm being
Not sure what the connectivity is between Comcast and AWS, but Level3
is having issues in Atlanta.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 10:07, Blair Trosper wrote:
>
> I'm being inundated with reports from Comcast customers in various markets
> about their inability to reach anything on AWS
I'm being inundated with reports from Comcast customers in various markets
about their inability to reach anything on AWS. For example, we have a few
people in Atlanta that are all having this issue.
What's more, they're having weird issues reaching things like Twitter or
RingCentral (while other
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard > [2014-04-22 10:29]:
> > ... turns 20 today.
> >
> > This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
> > some other vendor-specific standby protocols.
>
> it does NOT cover carp, not at all. carp was ca
On 22/04/2014 12:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
> it does NOT cover carp, not at all.
that is a political statement rather than a legal opinion. If you read the
patent, it's pretty obvious that when you have a group of carp-enabled
devices providing a stable gateway IP address, and these devices are
r
Le 2014-04-19 06:23, Florian Weimer a écrit :
>>> I agree with Bill. You can poopoo NAT all you want, but it's a fact
>>> of most networks and will continue to remain so until you can make a
>>> compelling case to move away from it.
>>
>> Does that mean all IPv6 firewalls should support NAT?
>
>
* Nick Hilliard [2014-04-22 10:29]:
> ... turns 20 today.
>
> This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
> some other vendor-specific standby protocols.
it does NOT cover carp, not at all. carp was carefully designed to
specifically avoid that.
--
Henning Brauer,
... turns 20 today.
This is the patent which covers hsrp, vrrp, many applications of carp and
some other vendor-specific standby protocols. Assuming no term
adjustments, 20 years is the normal term for US patents so unless there's
been any adjustments / continuations, probably this patent is now
33 matches
Mail list logo
