Whoops, my bad. Misparsed that acronym.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:31 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:04:14 -0700, Alex Buie said:
>
> > Recent TOR thing with freedomhosting (?) come to mind...
>
> That one appears to have been the FBI, which is DOJ not DHS. If you have
> evidence to the cont
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:04:14 -0700, Alex Buie said:
> Recent TOR thing with freedomhosting (?) come to mind...
That one appears to have been the FBI, which is DOJ not DHS. If you have
evidence to the contrary, feel free to bring it out in the open.
pgpX8aZSzp8cx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Recent TOR thing with freedomhosting (?) come to mind...
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:08 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:34:36 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>
> > Sometimes, it is a deliberate feature which is deliberately used to
> attack
> > the visitors of a web site. Prime example is the DH
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:34:36 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> Sometimes, it is a deliberate feature which is deliberately used to attack
> the visitors of a web site. Prime example is the DHS.
I must have missed this one. Citation please?
pgpQHZAshlFOW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Original Message -
> From: Kee Hinckley
> To: "nanog@nanog.org list"
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>>
>>
On Sep 7, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> The appropriate party to inform would be the FBI ... The word fraud comes to
> mind, and millions of 50 centses puts company officers in prison for a long
> long long time.
The charges did indeed expire rather than get posted. None of whic
013 11:28
> To: nanog@nanog.org list
> Subject: Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> >
> > I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was
> my own stupidity. It appears in the past
> > There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
> > serve" I ended up at a blank page on the Yahoo! web site, hopefully
> > they will figure that out as well.
> I'm continually amazed at the number of web designers that don't test
> their pages with NoScript enabled. Just s
On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which
> won't be settled, almost certainly.
I'd have more faith in that if a) there weren't three of them and b) they
didn't then tell me that my credit card information w
Sure. But the failure is /why/ you have three...
-jra
Kee Hinckley wrote:
>
>On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>> They're just validating a credit card number; that was an
>authorization which won't be settled, almost certainly.
>
>I'd have more faith in that if a) there weren't
On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which
> won't be settled, almost certainly.
I'd have more faith in that if a) there weren't three of them and b) they
didn't then tell me that my credit card information w
ley
,Royce Williams
,"nanog@nanog.org list"
Subject: Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
"Repeated attempts".
Wonder how many.
Cheers,
- jr 'betting on three' a
Warren Bailey wrote:
Makes you wonder why the charges are in triplicate? An authorization takes
p
ly a little less curious than they are I'd
>imagine.. ;)
>
>
>Sent from my Mobile Device.
>
>
> Original message
>From: Jay Ashworth
>Date: 09/05/2013 5:27 PM (GMT-08:00)
>To: Royce Williams ,"nanog@nanog.org list"
>
>Subject: Re: Yahoo is now
e: 09/05/2013 5:27 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Royce Williams ,"nanog@nanog.org list"
Subject: Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which
won't be settled, almost certainly.
Royce Williams wrote:
>On Thu
They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which
won't be settled, almost certainly.
Royce Williams wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kee Hinckley
>wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>>
>> I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my own
>> stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and I was
>
> I, on the other hand, nee
On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my own
> stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and I was
I, on the other hand, need someone from Yahoo! to contact me, because I decided
to te
On Sep 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my own
> stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and I was
> trying to use the wrong one, one that may have gone away a long time ago,
> rather t
In a message written on Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:17:28AM -0400,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:47:40 -0500, Leo Bicknell said:
> > There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
> > serve" I ended up at a blank page on the Yahoo! web site, hopefully they
On 09/04/2013 09:17 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:47:40 -0500, Leo Bicknell said:
There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
serve" I ended up at a blank page on the Yahoo! web site, hopefully they
will figure that out as well.
I'm continually
On 9/5/2013 1:20 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 9/4/2013 11:56 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
On 9/5/2013 12:17 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:47:40 -0500, Leo Bicknell said:
There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
serve" I ended up at a blank
> I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my =
> own stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and =
> I was trying to use the wrong one, one that may have gone away a long =
> time ago, rather than my still active ID. Some helpful people at Yah
On 9/5/2013 12:17 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:47:40 -0500, Leo Bicknell said:
There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
serve" I ended up at a blank page on the Yahoo! web site, hopefully they
will figure that out as well.
I'm continually a
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:47:40 -0500, Leo Bicknell said:
> There's still the much more minor point that when I tried to "self
> serve" I ended up at a blank page on the Yahoo! web site, hopefully they
> will figure that out as well.
I'm continually amazed at the number of web designers that don't te
I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my own
stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and I was
trying to use the wrong one, one that may have gone away a long time ago,
rather than my still active ID. Some helpful people at Yahoo got me
Alec . . . I'll take "I don"t use Yahoo because of Yahoo 's" for a 100 please.
--
Jason Hellenthal
Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
JJH48-ARIN
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:36, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
>>
>> The is
On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
> The issue was studied thoroughly by a committee of MBAs who, after extensive
> thought (read: 19 bottles of scotch), determined that there was money to be
> made.
>
> whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Apparently it was implemented by a group o
On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:12 AM, ML wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 11:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> Overall this is nothing new - Hotmail has been doing the same thing for
>> years.
>>
>> Scott
>
>
> When I used to use Hotmail - Your account was dropped after 30-60 days
> of non-use.
>
> Whereas Yahoo k
In article you write:
>> To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
>> Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
>
>with no X- before it?
Well, yes:
draft-wmills-rrvs-header-field-01.txt
R's,
John
Scott Howard wrote:
> The idea of this header is that it will allow a sender to control that a
Sender has no control and asks a receiver perform some control,
which may be ignored by the receiver.
> user will only receive an email if that email address was valid before a
> specific date, thus at
On 04/09/13 10:45, Randy Bush wrote:
> with no X- before it?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
> To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
> Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
with no X- before it?
randy
On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:12 PM, ML wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 11:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> Overall this is nothing new - Hotmail has been doing the same thing for
>> years.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
>
> When I used to use Hotmail - Your account was dropped after 30-60 days
> of non-use.
>
> Whereas Yahoo
On 9/3/2013 11:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Overall this is nothing new - Hotmail has been doing the same thing for
> years.
>
> Scott
>
When I used to use Hotmail - Your account was dropped after 30-60 days
of non-use.
Whereas Yahoo kept accounts active forever until recently.
Granted it's
To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
via draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field
The idea of this header is that it will allow a sender to control that a
user will only receive an email if that email address was valid before a
specifi
The issue was studied thoroughly by a committee of MBAs who, after
extensive thought (read: 19 bottles of scotch), determined that there
was money to be made.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
- Pete
On 9/3/2013 11:09 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Whackiness, predictably, ensues:
https://medium.com/e
36 matches
Mail list logo
