On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:00:38AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
> any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
> administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
You mean why didn't they just ask for it
i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
randy
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from
their inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
I'm not Chinese, but putting myself in their position...
I would be surprised if they were trying to determine
The Google Spokesperson I heard on the radio yesterday evening said
that they had not yet stopped censoring, and declined to give a date
when they would. His point was that the clock is ticking and Google
can see it.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at
On 1/14/10 12:31 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
community the recipients belong to. I
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the
> > picture to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies
> > the common community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight
> > forward.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: more news from Google
>
> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
> position/postings
> havin
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
> From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
> to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
> community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight forward.
>
The magic
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: more news from Google
Sent: Jan 13, 2010 12:53 PM
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: more news from Google
>
> It's not cle
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
>
>> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
>> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
>> activists. "
>
>> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gma
Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
>
>
>> The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
>> inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
>>
>
> It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: more news from Google
>
> It's not clear to me you have to read any e-mail to figure out that
> "help
In a message written on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:31:44PM +0100, Anthony Uk wrote:
> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
> at their mailboxes (with their consent, of course), but I still couldn't
> tell you the political position of any of them (apart from the pol
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
> activists. "
> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
> at their mailbox
It was to others :) But in the process of troubleshooting, an admin
may come across something say by looking at a bounce message or other
statistics such as which domains the user sends to on a regular basis.
cPanel even comes with Eximstats which does some of that for you.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010
On 2010-01-13, at 14:51, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
> You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
> actually answer this instead of guessing.
I've read the terms of service. I may be interpreting them incorrectly, sure,
but I'm not guessing.
If your comment was not directed at
You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
actually answer this instead of guessing. Also, if your reading your
own employee's email, that is most likely perfectly legal.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
>
>>
On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
> The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
> inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
rights to index and process their mail,
On 13.01.2010 06:24, Ken Chase wrote:
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
From the artic
Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: more news from Google
>>
>> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
>> position/postings
>> having read this article.
>&
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
>> breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
>
> OT.
> Please don't say "joo-joo" every time the TechCrunch folks see that
> they get diarrhea
That is a horrible name for a product. J
> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly breaking
> a law is bad joo-joo.
OT.
Please don't say "joo-joo" every time the TechCrunch folks see that
they get diarrhea
Cheers
Jorge
PS what about all the property and copyright laws being supposedly
broken over there ?
Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
unde
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
>
>> I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
>> very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
>> understand why they did s
orporate equivalent of recalling your
ambassador.
Regards
Marshall
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 1
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
> breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
I think we all consider their approach to copyright law refreshing and
useful, so there are certainly laws worth breaking. 8-)
ilto:m...@sizone.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: more news from Google
>>
>> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
>> position/postings
>> having read this article.
>>
&g
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote:
> Seems logical, after all.
>
> Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China compared
> to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't change a bit
> in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing
Seems logical, after all.
Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China
compared to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't
change a bit in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing.
That doesn't mean closing R&D centers.
Ben
Le 13/01/2010
ical if they'll go through with it...
Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIE-M/T
www.shortestpathfirst.net
GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: more ne
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284
>> Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
>> quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
>
> this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to
> another list pls?
Unless the Gates Foundation and Google wish to s
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bruce Williams
wrote:
> Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
> quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to
another list pls?
Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
>>
>> Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity?
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I
don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received
$20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to
those guys!
Yes, the Gates Foundation gives a lot of money to wo
William Hamilton wrote:
Jay Ess wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of the Microsoft founders,
what does that have to do with Microsoft's corporate charitable giving?
I would guess that the money originally comes from
Jay Ess wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of t
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't
> like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill
> and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
>
Just to put thi
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers
Jorge
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't
like MS any more than
Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us
confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
The tax wr
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
>
> I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us
> confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
>
The tax write-off alone is going to be
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> Another one from the "Evil Doer"
>
> http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
>
> Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
>
> Cheers
> Jorge
Other companies also do provide millions to charity each year:
http://
On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us
confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
> Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arg
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arguing FOR them.
Well played, Google.
/kc
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:28:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore's said:
>On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
>
>>> Another one from
> I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public
> corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and
> multiple people here can find bad things about it.
>
> I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.$WHATEVER percent of
> their profit
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
>> Another one from the "Evil Doer"
>> http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
>> Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
> So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep
> to give to charity they
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers
Jorge
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep
to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, th
Why would they do that and advertise the fact?
Advertising the fact generates the possible interpretation that they
were pursuing other goals other than pure altrusim.
Marketing comes in many shapes and forms. CSR is a big deal these days
any Im sure there are many pros at it at google now too.
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers
Jorge
> If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your
> data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies
> for your data.
This seems overly optimistic. Remember the whole telecom fiasco?
Even if you are breaking the law in some mild way, do you
3:09 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
>> Also reminds me of the Level 3 DNS servers in the 4.2.2.[1-8++] range.
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jonathan Lassoff [mailto:j...@thejof.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:51 PM
&
in the 4.2.2.[1-8++] range.
>
> -Scott
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Lassoff [mailto:j...@thejof.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:51 PM
> To: nanog
> Subject: Re: news from Google
>
> Excerpts from Charles Wyble's message of Th
Seth Mattinen wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
What I mean was that everyone seems happy with the whole "don't do
anything you don't want anyone knowing" thing, then this tangent
started. There must be things you don't want people to know that have
nothing to do with a potential
JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
What I mean was that everyone seems happy with the whole "don't do
anything you don't want anyone knowing" thing, then this tangent
started. There must be things you don't want people to know that have
nothing to do with a potential issue with law enforce
Seth Mattinen wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the
machine with all our data.
The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this.
This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived
by Google. For
Jorge Amodio wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNU_enUS355US353&q=%22Preventing+my+email+to+gmail+from+entering%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I didn't get any results from that link.
~Seth
>> This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by
>> Google. For example:
>>
>> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/threads.html
>> http://seclists.org/nanog/2009/Dec/434
>>
>> Subscribing to the list with a gmail account doesn't change anything about
>> what Google kn
JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the
machine with all our data.
The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this.
This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by
Google. For example:
http://www.
JC Dill wrote:
The part that gets me is that you don't already understand this.
Can you please be nice? I didn't throw personal attacks at you.
~Seth
> This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by
> Google. For example:
>
> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/threads.html
> http://seclists.org/nanog/2009/Dec/434
>
> Subscribing to the list with a gmail account doesn't change anything about
> what Google knows abou
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the
machine with all our data.
The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this.
This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by
Google. For example:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.a
--- se...@rollernet.us wrote:
The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this.
---
Not everyone. ;-)
scott
>> LRMAO
>>
>
> Coming from a gmail user...
Yes, and very satisfied with their service (not happy with the line
wraps though and plain text formatting), very convenient to receive
messages from e-mail lists and a more efficient way to deal with spam
and other nuisances.
I've to admit that actuall
Peter Beckman wrote:
Using a combo of Ad Blocker Plus and NoScript in Firefox helps reduce that
significantly, without all the popups. But yeah, it's hard to use the
Internet and not get tracked by a bunch of different entities you know
nothing about.
Which gives further proof that my ear
Jorge Amodio wrote:
LRMAO
Coming from a gmail user...
~Seth
Peter Beckman wrote:
I'm shocked that really smart people like Asa Dotzler are shocked by what
Eric Schmidt said, what I assumed was simply common knowledge - that there
is no real privacy on the internet.
"On the Sprint 3G network... If [the handset uses] the [WAP] Media Access Gateway, we
> Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits
> (or that I can't find):
>
> "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties."
LRMAO
Or they just acquire the third party to keep it in house ...
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your
data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies
for your data.
That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it
mildly.
Tha
> If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your
> data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies
> for your data.
Welcome to China, host country of IETF 79, the first IETF meeting that
will break the
record of VPN tunnels ...
Also, what law
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- beck...@angryox.com wrote:
From: Peter Beckman
At least Google seems to be honest about it.
--
Yeah, trust them...
I said "seems." It's hard to verify if ANY company follows what is said
in their Pri
> If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your
> data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies
> for your data.
That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it
mildly.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Peter Beckman wrote:
> Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits
> (or that I can't find):
>
> "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties."
>
> ~Seth
>
>
You aren't Bing's customer
> In FF goto "Tools", 'Options', 'Privacy', and select: "Accept cookies from
> sites'; 'Accept third-party cookies'; 'Keep until: just
> to get a taste. Be sure to click on 'Show Details' when the flood of cookies
> comes and pay attention to the details. Don't go to sites that bork when you
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
"We want your money" versus "we want your life".
I don't pay any of those search engines -- they make money off of
advertising. Huh, just like Google.
And to think that none of the search engines are taking that data and
trying to build better pr
--- beck...@angryox.com wrote:
From: Peter Beckman
At least Google seems to be honest about it.
--
Yeah, trust them...
---
What does Bing say they keep about you when you search, not logged into
your Passport account?
--- rich...@bennett.com wrote:
From: Richard Bennett
Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal
information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google
---
You need to study up on your corporate competition tactics m
Peter Beckman wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't
want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some
insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
At least Google seems to be
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want
people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on
where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
At least Google seems to be honest about it.
Wh
Richard Bennett wrote:
> Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal
> information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google
> business model is at odds with notions of personal privacy, so it's not
> even a question of the occasional excess on their part. Schmi
Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal
information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google
business model is at odds with notions of personal privacy, so it's not
even a question of the occasional excess on their part. Schmidt did what
Michael Kinsey c
Scott Weeks wrote:
--- m...@sizone.org wrote:
From: Ken Chase
topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox_users_move_to_Bing_cites_Google_privacy_stance?source=rss_news
from the horse's mouth, as it were.
So,
Another one for the collection
http://www.circleid.com/posts/dot_google_before_christmas/
Cheers
Jorge
> Um, yeah. Them there micro$loth folks is W more privacy oriented
> than them google
rascals.
Well, we still have hope that bing logs are stored in windows servers
making them more
difficult to access or even retain after the seasonal color of the
screen of death.
The article is not wo
--- m...@sizone.org wrote:
From: Ken Chase
topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox_users_move_to_Bing_cites_Google_privacy_stance?source=rss_news
from the horse's mouth, as it were.
So, how bout that DNS.
-
topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox_users_move_to_Bing_cites_Google_privacy_stance?source=rss_news
from the horse's mouth, as it were.
So, how bout that DNS.
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca -
On 08/12/09 23:19, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>> I maintain a list here [1], many of which are reachable with IPv6.
>> [1] http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf
>
> Not all of those are open resolvers, so I wonder what the cirteria for
> listing are. I'm especia
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Chris Hills wrote:
>
> I maintain a list here [1], many of which are reachable with IPv6.
> [1] http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf
Not all of those are open resolvers, so I wonder what the cirteria for
listing are. I'm especially surprised to see the IPv6 addresses of
Cambr
Martin Hannigan expunged (mar...@theicelandguy.com):
>
> Why did Google put an infrastructure critical application into PA space?
>
I'm not sure what the policy is now, but it seemed that when I was at L3
(losing my memory at this point) 4/8 was used as PA space and 8/8 was basically
handed o
>Will be interesting to see if ISPs respond to a large scale thing like
>this taking hold by blocking UDP/TCP 53 like many now do with tcp/25
>(albeit for other reasons). Therein lies the problem with some of the
>"net neturality" arguments .. there's a big difference between "doing it
>because it
>>
>> now Google DNS, anything more?
>>
>> http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-public-dns-new-dns.html
>
Probably in support of their various Android netbooks that are in the pipe.
They'll likely come pre-configured to use GoogleDNS .. that way they
won't (accidentally) loo
Google has got a lot of data centers around the world, but the DNS servers
are located in some of these.
There is the list of data centers with DNS servers:
USA, Atlanta
USA, Reston,VA
USA, Seattle
USA, California
Brazil, Sao Paulo
Taiwan, Taipei City
Germany, Frankfurt/Main
Netherlands, Groninge
> enter the picture. Of course, some of the DNS NXDOMAIN and
> similar "synthesis" they've been performing may perturb some
> users, and hence Google's service (and _many before) are
> presumably welcomed by casual (or expert) end users.
What really concerns me is that some ISPs these days are as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> I think one of the things that concerns me most with Google
> validating and jumping on the DNS "open resolver" bandwagon
> is that it'll force more folks (ISPs, enterprises and end
> users a
I think one of the things that concerns me most with Google
validating and jumping on the DNS "open resolver" bandwagon
is that it'll force more folks (ISPs, enterprises and end
users alike) to leave DNS resolver IP access wide open.
Malware already commonly changes DNS resolver settings to
Sent: Sat, December 5, 2009 5:21:24 AM
Subject: Re: news from Google
On 04/12/09 19:25, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> one note: OpenDNS is not the only 'competitor' here. just one of
> the better obviously known ones.
>
> ie:
> 4.2.2.2 L(3)
> 198.6.1.1/2/3/4/5/122
On 04/12/09 19:25, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> one note: OpenDNS is not the only 'competitor' here just one of
> the better obviously known ones.
>
> ie:
> 4.2.2.2 L(3)
> 198.6.1.1/2/3/4/5/122/142/146/195 ex-UU
> Neustar (can't recall ips, sorry)
I maintain a list here [1], many of which are
I don' think that google will be able to kill opendns right now. Neither google
nor any of the other well known DNS services provide the "value-added services"
that OpenDNS does, such as filtering, etc which can be a godsend for small
businesses that can't afford a rackful of gear...
BGC
On D
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 03:34:10PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Morrow
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Richard Bennett
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Google will be all sweetness and ligh
> Come on. Acquiring a company is now considered evil?
It's a sarcasm about the ones crying wolf about Google becoming "evil".
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
