On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:13:28PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> Yes, but it has to be parsed, and RIRs have varying whois formats. ARIN
> vs RIPE whois output, for example.
This is very easy to parse, though not a "web service":
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/RIR-Statistics-Exchange-Fo
* Steven Bellovin (s...@cs.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Stable outgoing connections for p2p apps, messaging, gaming platforms
> > and foo website with java script based rpc mechanisms have similar
> > properties. I don't slee
On 15/12/2009, at 11:19 PM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> So what you are saying is that ease of use and service availability is
> priority one. Then what exactly are the responsibilities of the ISP and CPE
> manufacturer when it comes to security? CPEs with WiFi usually comes with the
> advice to c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/15/2009 12:18 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
>> http://asn.cymru.com/
>
> Looks like their WHOIS server in verbose mode will do the trick for what
> I want, as it provides predictable output. Thank you.
For the record, the prefix you find here wil
I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
websites. There is no MX server for that domain, there is no valid mail sent as
from that domain. However when I hooked it up I immediately started getting
bounces and spam traffic attemtping to connect to the cnamed A rec
Hello,
You could use:
Local.example.com. IN A 127.0.0.1
Example.com.IN MX 10 local.example.com.
This way systems shouldn't deliver it at your system.
What you did mention is something we don't allow our customers to do (if I
am correct).
With kind regards,
Ma
* Eric J. Esslinger:
> I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
> example.comINMX 0 .
I think this is quite controversal. The best approach still seems to
be an SMTP rejecter on a dedicated IP address.
--
Florian Weimer
BFK edv-consulting GmbH ht
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
> I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
> websites. There is no MX server for that domain, there is no valid mail sent
> as from that domain. However when I hooked it up I immediately started
> getting bou
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
example.comINMX 0 .
Question: Is this a valid dns construct or did the proposal die? I don't want
to cause people problems but at the same time, I don't want any of this crap to
e
I've had a couple of off-list comments already about using it as/donating it to
a spam trap; That is a good idea and I actually thought of that.
However, the address was formerly used for email addresses for our customers
and for our business (some 10 years ago it was registered, but has not ha
Is anyone else seeing cyclops down -- or is it just me?
mtr -c10 -r 131.179.96.253
4. osh-2828-peer.onshore.net 0.0%101.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.1
5. ip65-47-181-105.z181-47-65.c 0.0%101.4 2.0 1.3 3.7 0.8
6. ge11-1-4d0.mcr2.chicago-il.u 0.0%102.1 1.7
Eric J Esslinger wrote:
> I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
> websites.
[...]
> I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
> example.comINMX 0 .
[...]
> Question: Is this a valid dns construct or did the proposal die?
It's "valid", b
Bill Weiss wrote:
Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100:
Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text.
On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read:
"This will route any created ticket to the robot handler which will
proces
Looks from from SATX (TWC/RoadRunner)
Jorge
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, sjk wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing cyclops down -- or is it just me?
>
> mtr -c10 -r 131.179.96.253
Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/14/2009 04:32 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
I'm a robot writing you on behalf of the SORBS' admins. The reason
you're getting this automated response, is our desire to provide you
with consistent and fast responses. I'm prepared to correctly analyze
most of the cases
Can someone from TW Telecom contact me offlist?
I have a customer having issues connecting to a TW Telecom hosted site.
Scott Wolfe
Cybera, Inc
615-301-2346
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
Hi all,
We're having an issue with an UPS here at UCLA where one of the
Cyclops servers is connected to. It should be fixed very soon, will
keep you posted..
Thanks,
--Ricardo
On Dec 15, 2009, at 8:00 AM, sjk wrote:
Is anyone else seeing cyclops down -- or is it just me?
mtr -c10 -r 13
A. Use a valid domain mapped to an unroutable or loopback instead of the .
I've decided to use 127.0.0.1
B. Set spf -all, for those who bother to check that to stop inbound mail from
your domain.
Already had that in place
C. Donate the spam to someone who would use it.
I can't donate the existing
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Bill Weiss wrote:
>> Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM
>> +0100:
>>
>>>
>>> Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text.
>>>
>>
>> On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read:
>>
Cyclops is online now, apologies for the disruption.
Best,
--Ricardo
On Dec 15, 2009, at 8:00 AM, sjk wrote:
Is anyone else seeing cyclops down -- or is it just me?
mtr -c10 -r 131.179.96.253
4. osh-2828-peer.onshore.net 0.0%101.3 1.3 1.2
1.6 0.1
5. ip65-47-181-105.z1
On Dec 15, 2009, at 4:49 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Steven Bellovin (s...@cs.columbia.edu) wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Stable outgoing connections for p2p apps, messaging, gaming
platforms
and foo website with java script based rpc mechanis
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Eric J. Esslinger:
>
> > I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
> > example.comINMX 0 .
>
> I think this is quite controversal.
My impression from discussions on various IETF lists is that most people
think it is a good ide
I disagree. There was considerable concern with a misuse of a mechanism and its
effect on various systems. That, from discussion on the IETF mailing list I was
on when it was discussed there. There was no rough consensus that I could see.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue
Dear List,
I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per circuit.
What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on the fence, how would
you use their service for this deal to make sense?
Best Regards,
Babak
--
Babak Pasdar
President & CEO | Certified Ethical Ha
Babak Pasdar wrote:
Dear List,
I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per circuit.
What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on the fence, how would
you use their service for this deal to make sense?
$1.50 per meg. ;) I'd probably take it just because
On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Babak Pasdar wrote:
>> Dear List,
>> I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per
>> circuit. What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on the
>> fence, how would you use their service for this deal to make s
The root zone DNSSEC deployment team is pleased to announce a new web
site with information about the project, http://www.root-dnssec.org.
The site serves as a repository for documentation and information
about deploying DNSSEC in the root zone, including technical status
updates. The first status
On 12/15/2009 09:53 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Babak Pasdar wrote:
Dear List,
I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per
circuit. What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on
the fence, how would you use their service for this deal to make sense?
$1.50
Hi,
Long story short I am a customer of 1and1.com for the domain
adappsolutions.com, we moved our datacenter roughly 60-days ago and updated our
records with 1and1.
However it is now December 15th and when I go here,
http://registrar.verisign-grs.com/cgi-bin/whois?whois_nic=ns2.adappsolutio
This 100-line document contains 62% of what you need to know to avoid
annoying 10,000 people in your email to the NANOG list. It also contains
pointers to another 23%. Please take 5 minutes to read it before
you post [again].
General Information
===
About NANOG:http://
On 12/15/09 8:06 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
Eric J Esslinger wrote:
I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
websites.
[...]
I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
example.comINMX 0 .
[...]
Question: Is this a valid dns construct or
Hi,
Thank you for everyone who responded, I have contacted someone and hope to have
it resolved.
Thanks again,
Scott M. Likens
In message <4b284376.3000...@mail-abuse.org>, Douglas Otis writes:
> On 12/15/09 8:06 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
> > Eric J Esslinger wrote:
> >> I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
> websites.
> > [...]
> >> I found a reference to a null MX proposal, construct
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:51:29 -0600, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
> B. Set spf -all, for those who bother to check that to stop inbound
> mail from your domain.
You might as well also add a DKIM ADSP policy with "dkim=discardable".
Similar to your SPF policy, it announces that no unsigned mail (or
no ma
[ Note: you're not talking about the RBL. You're talking about
a DNSBL or RHSBL, which are generic terms. The RBL is a specific
DNSBL and, as far as I know, does not have a listing policy related
to this discussion. ]
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:18:47PM +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> because
On 09/12/2009 15:18, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
a84-22-xx-xx.cb3rob.net. as it's RFC complient and we cannot be fucked to
haha. and what precisely did you expect? that's not really what most
people would consider valid reverse dns for a mail relay. (operational
practice often beats RFC whe
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Armstrong wrote:
> personally, i'd recommend not being a dick and setting valid *meaningful*
> reverse dns for things relaying mail.
Many sites don't use names that will necessarily be meaningful to an outsider.
Sometimes the non-meaningful name is the actua
Security by obscurity, in this day and age? :)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, James Hess wrote:
> As is common for many domains.
> Spammers coming in by scanning large ranges of IPs, have no
> pointer to report the mailserver they discovered is �...@example.com
> inbound (or outbound)
38 matches
Mail list logo
