>Lacking reverse should be one of many things to consider with rejecting
>e-mails, but should not be the only condition.
And your opinion is just another one. Someone else has a different one.
Resulting in the mess email is now. You won't believe the crap I read in
bounces (it also gives a funny
You only need Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo on board and everyone will follow... They
might even be able to dictate new SMTP RFCs.
David Hofstee
Deliverability Management
MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Wednesday
Hi,
I recently changed my monitoring server and would like to know how someone can
export MRTG data so that there are no breaks in the graph data?
regards
Joseph Muga Owino
Technical Officer
TESPOK
Cell: 0721-930-681
twitter.com/jpmuga
Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It’s Community Manager Appreciati
On 26 Mar 2014, at 11:26 AM, Joseph M. Owino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently changed my monitoring server and would like to know how someone
> can export MRTG data so that there are no breaks in the graph data?
If you went between architectures (32bit and 64bit), you’ll need to `rrdtool
dump`, and
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
> Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' to track the memberships in the
> club and handle voting out of abusive mail servers: in a distributed
> manner, to e
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum IPv6
> block, has more than 18 quintillion addresses and there's not a computer on
> the planet with enough memory (or probably not even enough disk space) to
> store that bl
Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> The usefulness of reverse DNS in IPv6 is dubious.
For most systems yes, but you might as well have it if you are manually
allocating server addresses.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Faeroes: Variable 4, becoming southeast 5 or 6. Moderate or rough. Fair.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:35:57PM -, John Levine wrote:
> It has nothing to do with looking down on "subscribers" and everything
> to do with practicality. When 99,9% of mail sent directly from
> consumer IP ranges is botnet spam, and I think that's a reasonable
> estimate, [...]
Data point:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at th
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:28:04 -0500
Larry Sheldon wrote:
According to the Ace of Spades HQ blog:
IPv6 would allow every atom on the surface of the earth to have its
own IP address, with enough spare to do Earth 100+ times.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characterist
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure o
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
.
> I want to see HIS source of hpow many atoms are actually on the earth.
> Somehow, I do not think anyone knows that answer. So his comparision is a
> joke.
Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/865/
Of course it is, you don't even need to think about logic to answer that
one.
On 3/26/2014 午後 09:55, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:28:04 -0500
Larry Sheldon wrote:
According to the Ace of Spades HQ blog:
IPv6 would allow every atom on the surface of the earth to have its
I would support THIS as a better reference than some of the other
email responses I have gotten.
Again comparing something like factual numbers of IPv6 addresses the
the very fuzzy math of guessing how many atoms there are is very silly
indeed.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:06:15 +
Gary Buhrma
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:05:52AM -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> most cases, would that not make things easier? So those that want to
> run email servers SHOULD be on ISP's that allow for rDNS
> configuration for IPv6.
Several years ago now the IETF DNSOP WG worked on a document about
reverse
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
> Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' [...]
This is attempt to splash a few drops of water on the people who own
the oceans. It won't work, for the same
On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
[snip]
I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as "Active
mail servers", active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
authority of a member.
...
As h
Maybe you should focus on delivering email instead of refusing it. Or just
keep refusing it and trying to bill people for it, until you make yourself
irrelevant. The ISP based email made more sense when most end users - the
people that we serve - didn't have persistent internet connections. T
On 03/26/2014 08:05 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. An
Does anyone have experience with BiLateral Transit Agreements, compared
to the same with Peering Agreements? I have 2 ISP customers that are
looking at such an agreement. While I can modify the standard BLPA
templates to support transit provisions, I was curious if anyone had
done so and what p
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:07:22AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
This is a FUSSP. It has been quite thoroughly debunked and may be
dismissed instantly, with prejudice.
---rsk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software Session Initiation Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-sip
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the Session Initiation Protocol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco 7600 Series Route Switch Processor 720 with 10 Gigabit Ethernet Uplinks
Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-RSP72010GE
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software Internet Key Exchange Version 2 Denial of Service
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ikev2
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the Internet Key Exchange
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software Network Address Translation Vulnerabilities
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-nat
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
The Cisco IOS Software implementation of the Network Address Translation (NAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ios-sslvpn
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPN subsystem of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software Crafted IPv6 Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ipv6
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the implementation of the IP version 6
SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ios-sslvpn
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPN subsystem of
Cisco IOS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker
: SHA1
>
> Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
>
> Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ios-sslvpn
>
> Revision 1.0
>
>For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
>
> Summary
> ===
>
> A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Laye
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
Is this normal for the list to diretly get Cisco security advisories or
something new. First time I have seen these.
They do this twice a year, all their advisories were sent here about half
a year ago as well.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: s
; On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:10:00 -0400
> Cisco Systems Product Security Incident Response Team
> wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
>>
>> Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20
-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ios-sslvpn
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPN subsystem of
Cisco
IOS Software could allow an
>That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
importance has changed since then.
http://ww
>OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum IPv6
>block, has more than 18 quintillion addresses
>and there�s not a computer on the planet with enough memory (or probably not
>even enough disk space) to store that
>block list.
>
>Sometimes scale is everything. host-based r
>It only takes a single entry if you do not store /128s but that /64. Yes,
>RBL lookups do not currently know how to handle this, but there are a
>couple of good proposals around on how to do it.
Sigh. See previous note on wny aggregating on /64 won't work.
>This would also reduce the risks from
;
> Robert
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:10:00 -0400
> Cisco Systems Product Security Incident Response Team
> wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulne
On 03/26/2014 12:59 PM, John Levine wrote:
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
i
In article <911cec5c-2011-4c8d-9cc1-89df2b4cb...@heliacal.net> you write:
>Maybe you should focus on delivering email instead of refusing it
Since there is at least an order of magnitude more spam than real
mail, I'll just channel Randy Bush and encourage my competitors to
take your advice.
R's,
On 3/26/2014 12:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum IPv6 block,
has more than 18 quintillion addresses
and there�s not a computer on the planet with enough memory (or probably not
even enough disk space) to store that
block list.
Someti
On 03/26/2014 01:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
Quite right. If I were a spammer or an ESP who wanted to listwash, I
could easily use a different IP addres for every single message I
sent. R's, John
Week before last I saw this in great detail, with nearly 100,000
messages sent to our users per day
John Levine wrote:
>
> If I were a spammer or an ESP who wanted to listwash, I could easily use
> a different IP addres for every single message I sent.
Until mail servers start rate-limiting the number of different addresses
that are used :-) You can do something like the following in Exim, whic
Lamar Owen wrote:
> the typical ISP has the technical capability to bill based on volume of
> traffic already, and could easily bill per-byte for any traffic with
> 'e-mail properties' like being on certain ports or having certain
> characteristics.
Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic fro
>And I also remember thinking at the time that you missed one very
>important angle, and that is that the typical ISP has the technical
>capability to bill based on volume of traffic already, and could easily
>bill per-byte for any traffic with 'e-mail properties' like being on
>certain ports o
On 03/24/2014 06:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
DHCPv6 is no less robust in my experience than DHCPv4.
ARP and ND have mostly equivalent issues.
This depends a lot on what you mean by 'robust'
Now, I have dealt with NAT, and I see IPv6 as a technology with the
potential to make my life less unple
On 3/26/2014 12:55 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
However, DHCPv6 isn't anywhere near as useful for me, as someone who
normally deals with IPs that don't change, as DHCPv4 is.
My favorite is the RA thing. Years ago I decided that stupid DSLAMs were
better than smart ones, so I generally utili
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
On 03/24/2014 06:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
DHCPv6 is no less robust in my experience than DHCPv4.
ARP and ND have mostly equivalent issues.
This depends a lot on what you mean by 'robust'
Now, I have dealt with NAT, and I see IPv6 as a technol
On March 25, 2014 at 23:33 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
>
> Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
> transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
That is the point, isn't it.
Most see spam as its content.
The real problem with spam is its volum
On 03/26/2014 01:38 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic from 41.0.0.0/8 ? Tony.
You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill them for
outgoing e-mail.
Postage, at least for physical mail, is paid by the sender at the point
of ingress to the postal ne
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Tue, Mar
25, 2014 at 10:45:00PM -0400 Quoting John R. Levine (jo...@iecc.com):
> >None of this is REQUIRED. It is forced on people by a cartel of
> >email providers.
>
> It must be nice to live in world where there is so little
On 03/26/2014 01:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
And I also remember thinking at the time that you missed one very
important angle, and that is that the typical ISP has the technical
capability to bill based on volume of traffic already, and could easily
bill per-byte for any traffic with 'e-mail prope
Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> The entity with whom they already have a business relationship. Basically, if
> I'm an ISP I would bill each of my customers, with whom I already have a
> business relationship, for e-mail traffic. Do this as close to the edge as
> possible.
Ooh, excellent, so I can deliver
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 01:38 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic from 41.0.0.0/8 ? Tony.
>
> You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill them for outgoing
> e-mail.
You mean Nigeria. So how do I get compensated for dealing with the junk
the
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:22 -0400, Lamar Owen said:
> it; get enough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action
> suit against OS vendors that allow the problem to remain a problem; you
> can get rid of the bots.
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:19:14 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
> Again comparing something like factual numbers of IPv6 addresses the
> the very fuzzy math of guessing how many atoms there are is very silly
> indeed.
A bit of thought will show that you can probably compute this based on our
est
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/26/2014 11:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> So, what other ways are there to make unsolicited commercial
> e-mail unprofitable?
Well, perhaps not by punishing legitimate SMTP senders who have done
nothing wrong.
Don't get me wrong -- I already *pay
It must be nice to live in world where there is so little spam and
other mail abuse that you don't have to do any of the anti-abuse
things that real providers in the real world have to do.
What is a real provider? And what in the email specifications tells us
that the email needs and solutions o
On 3/26/2014 2:16 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
to a
paid service (e.g. "If you are not paying for a service, you are the
product.").
That needs to be engraved in the glass screens of every device, like the
"G.O.A.L" at the bottom of the rear-view mirror of some semi-truck tractors.
--
Requiescas
On 03/26/2014 02:59 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
who click on stuff they shouldn't, or reply to phishing emails, or
most of the other ways people *actually* get pwned these days? Hint:
Microsoft *tried* to fix this with
On 03/26/2014 03:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Most of the phishing e-mails I've sent don't have a valid reply-to,
from, or return-path; replying to them is effectively impossible, and
the linked/attached/inlined payload is the attack vector.
Blasted spellcheck Now that everybody has had a
On March 26, 2014 at 16:59 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
>
> I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
> bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
> importance has changed since then.
>
> http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf
It's a fine whit
If you can figure out how to store an address and a mask you can have any size
entry you want. Just like a routing table. This is not insurmountable.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
> OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum
> IPv6 block, has more than 18 quintillion add
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:19:14 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
Again comparing something like factual numbers of IPv6 addresses the
the very fuzzy math of guessing how many atoms there are is very silly
indeed.
A bit of thought will show th
>>>Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
>>>Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' to track the memberships in the
>>>club and handle voting out of abusive mail servers: in a distributed
>>>manner, to ensure that no court could ever mandate that a c
Daniel Taylor wrote the following on 3/26/2014 7:45 AM:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure ou
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> There are many ways to skin this cat; stateless autoconfig looks
> like it mostly works, but privacy extensions seem to be the default
> in many places; outgoing IPv6 from those random addresses will trip
> my BCP38 filters.
Your
On 03/26/2014 03:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
There are many ways to skin this cat; stateless autoconfig looks
like it mostly works, but privacy extensions seem to be the default
in many places; outgoing IPv6 from those random addres
>How about something much simpler? We already are aware of bandwidth caps at
>service providers, there could just as
>well be email caps. How hard would it be to ask your customer how many emails
>we should expect them to send in a day?
Once again, I encourage my competitors to follow your ad
On Mar 26, 2014 6:27 PM, "Luke S. Crawford" wrote:
> My original comment and complaint, though, was in response to the
assertion that DHCPv6 is as robust as DHCPv4. My point is that DHCPv6
does not fill the role that DHCPv4 fills, if you care about tying an IP to
a MAC and you want that connecti
On 3/25/2014 10:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
(1) Architectural layers are a protocol design construction, only, which
assist with standardization. They are not a separation of
responsibilities.
Actually, they are specifically a separation of responsibilities.
That the separation doesn't work ade
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>>> With this in mind, how hard is it for a spamming operation to setup
> rDNS for their IPv6 ranges? Not very hard, just like their ability to use
> SPF or DKIM (they will do it if it improves their deliverability). This is
> separate from
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
> particularly productive.
That is one of my two big take-aways from this conversation. T
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:52:53PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014 6:27 PM, "Luke S. Crawford" wrote:
> > My original comment and complaint, though, was in response to the
> assertion that DHCPv6 is as robust as DHCPv4. My point is that DHCPv6
> does not fill the role that DHCPv4
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R
> wrote:
>
>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
>> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
>> particularly product
>To my knowledge, there are three impacts that IPv6 implementation makes on an
>SMTP implementation. One is that the OS
>interface to get the address of the next MUA or MTA needs to use getaddrinfo()
>instead of gethostbyname() (and would
>do well to observe RFC 6555�s considerations).
In practi
On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R
> wrote:
>
>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
>> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
>> particularly produc
On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use :
for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA
are confused by it.
At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No
confus
On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
massive exploiting of holes in web hosting sites' software.
Except that compromised personal computers are 'valid' by a
Hey,
I have a weird off the wall question for a NA group.
Does any have contacts in Edinburgh Scotland who can provide WISP
service at the Hopetoun House and Dundas Castle. I would like to have
20-60mpbs to for 2 days of services.
Our company's event planner claims there are no good ISP opti
In article <5333970a.6070...@direcpath.com> you write:
>
>On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use
>> : for IPv6 addresses while this is the
>separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it.
>At the
20-60mbps is a tall order.
I¹d say cellular.. Maybe you can pair together a couple of 4g cradle
points and do load balancing on them?
You are screwed for LOS microwave, 60mbps on a microwave hope requires
real life engineering to function correctly. Frequency coordination,
towers, AGL requirement
On 3/26/2014 11:28 PM, John Levine wrote:
It's messier than that. See RFC 5321 section 4.1.3. I have no idea
whether anyone has actually implemented IPv6 address literals and if
so, how closely they followed the somewhat peculiar spec.
R's,
John
I'm not sure why the SMTP RFC defines IPv6-ad
Laser link, and pray for clear weather?
Warren Bailey wrote:
20-60mbps is a tall order.
I¹d say cellular.. Maybe you can pair together a couple of 4g cradle
points and do load balancing on them?
You are screwed for LOS microwave, 60mbps on a microwave hope requires
real life engineering to fun
Yeah.. If you have an extra 10k per radio. Free Space Optics are
everything but free. Lol
And attenuation at 80ghz is going to be heavy.. When I say heavy.. I
mean.. A fart will cause a fade if you’re close enough to the tx. ;)
I would not recommend FSO for anyone with less than an ultra black be
On March 26, 2014 at 20:21 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> > What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
> > simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
> > massive exploiting of holes in web ho
I'm not saying John Klensin shouldn't have a say in how the IPv6 address is
defined, but I do think it would be best for everyone to work it out in an
official place somewhere so that email software isn't doing the complete
opposite of everyone else.
Too late.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc
I think the real problem here is the event is for 2 days and he requires a
metric shxt ton of data (for wireless anyways..). Sure you could get all kinds
of COOL solutions together, but do you think the (UK Version) LEC is going to
run DSL/fiber/blah for a two day event? And who bears that cost
And MSOs, wireless carriers, and satellite providers aren't competitors to
RLECs?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:05 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
On Mar 26, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum IPv6
>> block, has more than 18 quintillion addresses and there's not a computer on
>> the planet with enough mem
On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
>> with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as "Active
>> mail servers", active IP addresse
On Mar 26, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 06:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> DHCPv6 is no less robust in my experience than DHCPv4.
>>
>> ARP and ND have mostly equivalent issues.
>
> This depends a lot on what you mean by 'robust'
>
> Now, I have dealt with NAT, and
LoL
Spellcheck… Helping you correctly spell the incorrect word every time.
Owen
On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 03:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> Most of the phishing e-mails I've sent don't have a valid reply-to, from, or
>> return-path; replying to them is e
On Mar 26, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 03:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
>>> There are many ways to skin this cat; stateless autoconfig looks
>>> like it mostly works, but privacy extensions seem to be
On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:52:53PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2014 6:27 PM, "Luke S. Crawford" wrote:
>>> My original comment and complaint, though, was in response to the
>> assertion that DHCPv6 is as robust as DHCPv4. My
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use
>> : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few
>> MTA are confused by it.
> At
Depends.
On some services (L3, etc.), yes, they compete.
That should not be conflated with competing at the L1 service.
MSOs deliver L1 co-ax or HFC.
RLECs deliver copper pairs and/or GPON.
Satellite is it’s own peculiar sets of L1 transport.
None of them compete head-to-head on the same technolo
95 matches
Mail list logo
