I was having issues remaining connected to Gtalk but it seems to have
corrected itself.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Web interface is broken, downdetector sure sees activity. This attempt is
> from mobile.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
>
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-06-08 07:27, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> In message <20160608070525.06fd5...@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>, Tore
>> Anderson writes:
>>
>>> * Davide Davini
>>>
>>> Blocking access to Netflix via the tunnel seems like an obvious
>>> solu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> What is non-standard about an HE tunnel? It conforms to the relevant RFCs
>> and
>> is a very common configuration widely deployed to many thousands of
>> locations
>> around the internet.
>>
>> Itÿÿs n
I'm see the same thing from multiple networks.
$ dig NS . @g.root-servers.net
; <<>> DiG 9.9.5 <<>> NS . @g.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
>
> I wonder if it'
They made an announcement about it a while back:
http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/help-support/2uTrAyy8-na-server-roadmap-update-chicago-server-move-complete
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> That's interesting news, how did you hear about that?
> On Nov 14, 2015
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
> understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
> the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
> clients get ev
You should elaborate on some of these 'holes' then.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are
>> connecting via IPv6.
>
>
> Interesting method that's full
That's only an issue with airport devices and PPPoE. I can confirm it
does native DHCPv6-PD otherwise.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:32 AM, William Waites wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 06:13:52 +, Mel Beckman said:
>
> > In fact, I show just how to do this using a $99 Apple Airport
> > Expr
Correct, the leap second gets inserted at midnight UTC.
"Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December
or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed every
six months, either to announce a time step in UTC or to confirm that there
will be no t
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Complexity of the configuration vastly increases the size of the
> attack surface: in a NATted edge network, *no packets can come in
> unless I explicitly configure for them*; there are any number of
> reasons why an equivalently simply asser
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Complexity of the configuration vastly increases the size of the
> attack surface: in a NATted edge network, *no packets can come in
> unless I explicitly configure for them*; there are any number of
> reasons why an equivalently simply asser
We've been seeing the same thing since 2010-06-10:
22:13:19.687981 IP 72.236.167.197.41789 > 72.236.167.138.domain: 38783+ A?
jkl.cnr.cn. (28)
22:13:19.773076 IP 72.236.167.124.33327 > 72.236.167.138.domain: 38783+ A?
i10.aliimg.com. (32)
22:13:19.855750 IP 72.236.167.169.33381 > 72.236.167.138.
On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:40:20AM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
"Allowing unfiltered public access to port 25 is one of the things
that
increases everyone's spam load, and your ISP is trying to be a Good
Neighbor in blocking access to anyon
On 6/5/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Combined responses to save bandwidth and hassle (and number of times you
have to press 'd'):
--
> Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the
internet:
Okay, so exactly how many times do you think we have to say
On 6/4/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can give you the root password to a Linux machine running telnetd and
sshd. If it's behind NAT/PAT, you will not get into it. Period.
Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the internet:
Fenrir:~% telnet ipv4.
15 matches
Mail list logo
