on Thu, May 04, 2023 at 08:09:01PM -0600, Forrest Christian (List Account)
wrote:
> I can't speak for aptum, but I'm curious as to why this is important to
> you? I'm not trying to discount this at all, just curious why this
> matters in the internet of 2023.
For the past 20 years, I've been u
on Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 05:35:19PM +, Scott T Anderson via NANOG wrote:
> Hi NANOG mailing list,
>
> I am a graduate student, currently conducting research on how power
> outages affect home Internet users.
Not a netadmin, but longtime sysadmin, and have been working from home
for over a deca
on Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 04:50:00PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Assuming (not confirmed) mitigating old-style DOS attacks. See
> "ping of death."
Are there even enough dialup connections and ancient modems left that POD
is a thing anyone needs to worry about? I mean, yeah, I enjoyed knocking
spam
on Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 04:05:44AM +, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> Anyone?
FWIW, I took a look at my scans data and there's a lot of this around. Of
the 5477 PTRs with spaces, in approximately ~490 domains*, those with more
than twenty hosts with PTRs containing spaces are th
Anyone?
1.179.154.11:1-179-180.11.cisp.totisp.\\ net
dig -x 1.179.154.11
11.154.179.1.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR
1-179-180.11.cisp.totisp.\032net.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://hesketh.com/
Internet security and antispam hostname intelligence: h
Someone over there has decided, perhaps by accident, to include actual
\032 chars in their PTRs, which they may want to fix, eg zdns output:
87.88.9.76:87\\ -\\ 88-9-76.abo.bbox.fr
87.88.9.77:87-\\ 88-9-77.abo.bbox.fr
dig -x output:
76.9.88.87.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR 87-\03288-9-7
on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39:11PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> EXCEPT that is just an example,don't actually use a hostname
> like "ip192-0-0-1.example.com." in real life.
>
> [*] Certain overly aggressive blacklists assume that the host must be
> a dynamic / dial-up user due to the pre
Sorry for the delay; I've been traveling and neglecting my lists.
on Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> With many changes going on this year in our network, I figured it's a
> good time to revisit our naming conventions used in our networks.
I study PTR naming conventio
on Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
> Spamhaus does some good work, but being used as a pawn in
> some conflict between vendors doesn't feel nice. And I want to
> know how they figured out we had a Barracuda.
If it's connected to the 'Net and listening on port 25, it's rat
on Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 02:59:55PM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
> 4. For other reasons laid out in this thread, PTR is not the best choice.
> Additionally, administrators of mailservers who have no idea what a PTR
> is -- although their entry fee to the Internet mail system is debatable
>
on Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:31:06PM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
> Steven, take it easy please.
>
> Given the first few replies I received, allow me to clarify, now that I've
> successfully hijacked the thread and apparently angered the anti-spam crowd:
Oh, I'm not angry, if anything I'm disappointed b
on Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
> The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it
> was "why would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast
> address is a residential customer with a modem, forcing those with
> allocations to prove that they ar
on Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:27:06PM -0500, Mike Lieman wrote:
> >
> > ...and if people used "static" and "dynamic" keywords in DNS as I suggested
> > in my previously mentioned draft,
>
> What are the words for "static" and "dynamic" in Lower Sorbian?
I was bored so I looked them up. :-)
dynamic:
on Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 06:01:51PM +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> ...and if people used "static" and "dynamic" keywords in DNS as I
> suggested in my previously mentioned draft, there would be *NO NEED*
> for DUL/DUHL/PBL lists at all because people could create a very
> simple set of patterns t
on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:27:44AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/10/2009 09:06 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> I think Mark means "the question of whether a particular address is
>> statically-assigned or dynamically-assigned", but...
>
> Which assumes that that's the question that actually needs t
on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:11:18AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I'd say that Mikael Abrahamsson's sentiment (or at least the way I read
> it) would be a better start: take a step back and ask what the problem is.
Well, as I see it, the problem is a widespread and systemic failure to
prevent mass
on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:43:36AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/2009 7:29 AM, Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
>> As previously noted in this thread, msulli...@sorbs did a fairly good
>> job of documenting this in an RFC draft. I'd say its still the primary
>> goto to point people at for
on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:48:05AM -0500, Michael Holstein wrote:
> Like many places, we run seperate internal and external DNS .. when a
> user requests a static IP, they can opt to make it "external", but few
> do, since we point out that when they do that, they loose the anonymity
> of the "gene
on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:29:15AM -0600, Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
>
>> Creating a standard on what to put in WHOIS/DNS for
>> dynamic/static/infrastructure would make a lot of sense, seems nobody is
>> doing it though.
>
> As previously noted in this thread, msulli...@sorbs did a fairly goo
on Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Tom Pipes wrote:
> [...] We have done our best to ensure these blocks conform to RFC
> standards, including the proper use of reverse DNS pointers.
Sorry to jump in so late, been catching up from vacation. I'm checking
out the PTRs for the /18 you mention,
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:22:17AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:26:59AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> > Don't be afraid to create zones for each
> > location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
> > hierarchy naturally.
> >
> > I find
on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:39:49AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> On 27/03/2009, at 3:26 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
>> Especially if they're spewing spam and viruses like a firehose.
>
> If you're talking about our net blocks, then
> please do drop me a line. We're
on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 02:14:27AM +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> [snip interode related hostnames such as this]
>
> > > > adsl.adelaide.on.net
>
> > > That's a safe assumption.
> >
> > Unf
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:44:57PM +1100, Martin Barry wrote:
> $quoted_author = "Steven Champeon" ;
> >
> > adsl.internode.on.net
> > gaw.internode.on.net
> > padsl.internode.on.net
> > adsl.adelaide.on.net
> > link.inte
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:26:59AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> Don't be afraid to create zones for each
> location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
> hierarchy naturally.
>
> I find this is tidier than lengthy A records.
>
> I.e, hostname.location.domain
And yet makes it more difficult for anyone
on Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:44:15PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The recommendations in this draft proposal have worked for me:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
Also:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06
http://t
on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:17:14PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 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-in
on Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:15:41PM +, *Hobbit* wrote:
> Related question, now that some discussion has started: why the F
> does Gmail refuse to put real, identifiable injection-path headers
> in mail they relay out? The current "policy" only protects spammer
> identities behind a meaningless
on Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 01:24:43PM -0500, Al Iverson wrote:
> I'm not going to pretend I manage inbound mail service for
> thousands-to-millions of users (as most of the participants of other
> lists like SPAM-L are fond of imagining themselves), but I know enough
> about how IP reputation systems
on Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:00AM -0600, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> It seems to me reverse DNS just isn't an acceptable anti-spam measure.
> Too many broken reverses exist with smaller companies (try getting a 3rd
> party to fix it). It's not that hard for a bot to figure out a DSL's
> reverse
30 matches
Mail list logo
