Owen DeLong writes:
> I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my mail
> server. I use TLS and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many of the "just
> works" settings in question break these things badly.
One of my customers has an appliance for his WLAN guest access access
which
Some folks on this list may be interested in Ars Technica's take on "cool"
ISPs:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/the-coolest-isp-in-the-world.ars
(note: I neither endorse nor condemn any of the ideas, ISPs, etc. In other
words, don't blame me if you disagree...)
Cocorico!
Another way to measure coolness of ISPs is to check how they're engaged
with common people. Several Free.fr managers (including Xavier Niel and
Rani Assaf) participate personally on the FRnOG mailing-list (in
addition to Free.fr newsgroups). Some SFR employees also read FRnOG.
None
On Dec 9, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>> I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my mail
>> server. I use TLS and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many of the "just
>> works" settings in question break these things badly.
>
> One of my custome
Hi NANOG readers,
We've noticed that Trend Micro "mail-abuse.com" just "assumes" ips are
dynamic by default, adds them to their stupid list, and then expects US to
update -their- database -for them- for free to get them off their stupid
list again. (as ofcourse our customers bug us when their emai
As of about an hour ago AT&T appear to have started blocking access to a few
of our IP addresses. This is being done at a /32 level, and the IP addresses
above and below are still allowed through.
Has anyone seen them do this before, or know who I need to contact to get it
fixed? AT&T won't talk
On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Traceroute to the neighboring IP addresses don't go anywhere near the above
> path, so it's apparently a blackhole of sorts.
Are they bots or C&C servers, or open DNS recursors?
-
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> > Traceroute to the neighboring IP addresses don't go anywhere near the
> above path, so it's apparently a blackhole of sorts.
>
> Are they bots or C&C servers, or open DNS recursors?
>
They are (authenticated-required) proxy servers with
On Dec 9, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> They are (authenticated-required) proxy servers with 10's of thousands of
> users behind them, so it's possible that they were seeing some bot-like
> traffic from them, although the volume would have been tiny compared to the
> volume of legit
Thanks for the number, but their NOC was unable to help me. They referred me
back to their Abuse Mailbox and abuse e-mail addresses
(blockedbyearthl...@abuse.earthlink.net, ab...@abuse.earthlink.net). They were
unable to provide any alternative number or e-mail address. I ended up calling
their
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis
wrote:
> We've noticed that Trend Micro "mail-abuse.com" just "assumes" ips are
> dynamic by default,
>
> because they just assume that working, rfc compliant, reverse dns that
> just-so-happens to be automatically generated would indicate dynami
Is the IP space anywhere near these -
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=limestonenetworks.com
Found 7 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of limestonenetworks.com
SBL82484
69.162.119.163/32 limestonenetworks.com
03-Dec-2009 18:14 GMT BOA phish site
SBL81933
Is there an RFC detailing that specific text strings must be used for static
v. dynamic addresses?
I can understanding keeping rDNS in sync, but that's not the issue here, is
it?
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM, William Herrin
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis
> wrote
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:30:45AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Jens Link wrote:
>
> > Owen DeLong writes:
> >
> >> I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my mail
> >> server. I use TLS and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many of the "just
> >>
On Dec 9, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Mike Lieman wrote:
> Is there an RFC detailing that specific text strings must be used for static
> v. dynamic addresses?
>
Well there is this draft Document, FWIW,
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
Which contains sugges
Mike Lieman wrote:
> Is there an RFC detailing that specific text strings must be used for static
> v. dynamic addresses?
>
> I can understanding keeping rDNS in sync, but that's not the issue here, is
> it?
>
There is no RFC that I'm aware of, but I'd say it's pretty common for
PTR records that
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:22:50 -0500, Scott Howard wrote:
As of about an hour ago AT&T appear to have started blocking access to a
few of our IP addresses.
AT&T won't talk to me as I'm not a customer...
So, wait, are they your addresses or not?
--
Paul
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Mike Lieman wrote:
Is there an RFC detailing that specific text strings must be used for static
v. dynamic addresses?
There's this expired draft
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
But really, the rdns should just clearly indicate t
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM, William Herrin
wrote:
> If you haven't made the effort to set up and secure a mail server then
perhaps his ISP does something dumb (like verizon does) and only
delegates to one server, which may/may-not be available at the time of
the incident? (or is blocked/dow
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM, wrote:
> that the IP datagrams between the source and the target pass through
> the DNS server... which we -KNOW- is false.
dns-tunnel
ARIN would like to report that it has worked with all its customers who
received ASNs from the AS1707-AS1726 range and has provided them with
replacement ASNs.
Additionally, ARIN is now checking the other RIR databases and global routing
tables just prior to issuance of any number resources (
> we've basically told them to go to hell and we advise everyone who uses
> their RBL lists to remove their RBLs from their configs, as what we have
> here is a mismanaged list.
>
Same thing we told them (snippit of my response below).
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:22:50 -0500, Scott Howard wrote:
>
> As of about an hour ago AT&T appear to have started blocking access to a
>> few of our IP addresses.
>>
>
> AT&T won't talk to me as I'm not a customer...
>>
>
> So, wait, are they
Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>> I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my mail server.
>> I use TLS and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many of the "just works"
>> settings in question break these things badly.
>>
>
> One of my customers has an appliance
Michael Holstein wrote:
Suit yourself .. but you can't arbitrarily force the Internet as a whole
to adopt an unwritten standard just to make your lives easier. If we
encounter problems with our end-users and not being able to deliver
email reliably to one of your customers, we'll have them call
On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:00 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jonas Frey wrote:
>
>> the DE-CIX pricing is now 500 Euro/month...since 1st october...see end
>> of that page.
>> Both DE-CIX and AMS-IX have decreased their pricing this year..almost at
>> the same time. I guess
> One could argue that you are *not* complying by using a generic PTR
> for a mail server. Some would say that a serious mail server should
> have proper DNS records, others will say that you should accept mail
> from any IP no matter what.
No, we do have it correct .. they wanted us to fix all t
Michael Holstein wrote:
No, we do have it correct .. they wanted us to fix all the *other* ones
(that can't even send mail because they're firewalled from doing so) ..
$ dig -t mx csuohio.edu
[..]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
csuohio.edu.10800INMX10 antispam5.csuohio.edu.
csuohio.edu.
To be clear: because the legitimate mailserver with a proper non-generic
reverse was in a block with other generic reverses, they blacklisted you?
That's egregiously harsh.
SORBS was blocking a customer for a generic reverse entry, I gave them a legit
looking reverse (that fwds properly too), so
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:09:20 EST, Ken Chase said:
> To be clear: because the legitimate mailserver with a proper non-generic
> reverse was in a block with other generic reverses, they blacklisted you?
>
> That's egregiously harsh.
>
> SORBS was blocking a customer for a generic reverse entry, I
On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Jens Link wrote:
Owen DeLong writes:
I expect my connections to my mail server to actually reach my
mail server. I use TLS and SMTP AUTH as well as IMAP/SSL. Many
of the "just works" settings in question break these things badly.
O
>;; ANSWER SECTION:
>csuohio.edu.10800INMX10 antispam5.csuohio.edu.
>csuohio.edu.10800INMX10 antispam4.csuohio.edu.
>csuohio.edu.10800INMX10 antispam3.csuohio.edu.
>csuohio.edu.10800INMX10 antispam2.csuohio.edu.
>(and)
> All of the DNSBLs I know are about outbound mail hosts, not inbound
> ones. What are your sending hosts called?
>
Outbound goes through the same 4 boxes. We used to split it up (2 at
MX10, 2 at MX20 .. reversed for outbound) but for capital
(licensing/hardware) reasons we decided to do in/o
> To be clear: because the legitimate mailserver with a proper non-generic
> reverse was in a block with other generic reverses, they blacklisted you?
>
Their initial email said :
[snip]
Trend Micro Notification: 137.148.0.0/16 added to DUL
[snip]
and then went on to say :
[snip]
To work wi
if there's a Cogent NOC admin here, can you please contact me
privately, off the list. thanks.
-c
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Michael Holstein wrote:
Their initial email said :
[snip]
Trend Micro Notification: 137.148.0.0/16 added to DUL
[snip]
That's just lazy/sloppy. A quick survey of your /16 suggests that the
majority of it has PTRs in the format of csu-137-148-36-160.csuohio.edu,
which lo
>1) TOTAL ALLOCATED SPACE in CIDR format
> Please include all information for the space you announce.
> The total of Static and Dynamic space must equal the
> Total Allocated Space.
>2) DYNAMIC SPACE LIST - in CIDR format
>3) STATIC SPACE LIST - in CIDR Format
>[snip]
>
>Which was,
Michael:
I've seen their form, too. I think you're reading too much into their
policies/requests.
Does it matter if they label your non e-mail server IPs as dynamic space,
and therefore put it on their DUL?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuo
Each network can decide how they want to run their network, and Trend Micro
can make any list they like, but if cb3rob.net wants to send e-mail to other
networks that use Trend Micro's list for spam control, cb3rob.net will have
to decide whether to comply with the other network's rules, even if th
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
Two sides of an SP's coin: I want to maximize my e-mail servers'
deliverability, so I make sure those have appropriately named PTRs and make
sure that outbound messages aren't spammy; I also want to restrict
The point he was trying to make is that there is
Hi,
Does anyone have any great websites to share or advice where I can
locate all the tier one Internet Data Centre (IDC) providers in Shenzhen
China?
My second question would be on any advice that anyone can offer about
the problems that can be faced operating your technology foot print
in
41 matches
Mail list logo
