Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is
concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing the
following:
SPF: Each domain adds a list of IP Addresses that are allowed to send e-mail on
their behalf.
DKIM: Each email sent by an "origina
Even though your example is a bit melodramatic I agree with the concept,
all the arguments against the ownership that users have on their own
data is just hogwash.
If there needs to be government imposed regulations to ensure it, I have
zero problems with it.
On 29/03/2017 03:19, Mel Beckman wrot
Antonia's,
Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't know
about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects missed it, or
seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all the messages.
-mel beckman
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 12:04 AM, DaKnOb wrote:
>
>
Davide,
My example is simply a reductio ad absurdum, to demonstrate the error of the
idea that ISPs should be allowed to resell data "because money". :)
-mel
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Davide Davini wrote:
>
> Even though your example is a bit melodramatic I agree with the concept,
> a
Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just marketing
themselves poorly? Any nearby you could convince to expand?
Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 broadband
wireline and nearly that many enterprise fiber. I admit that may be
exceptional.
-
What is lost if AT&T or Comcast sells my anonymized usage habits?
Quite frankly I think targeting advertising is a great thing. On TV I see all
kinds of commercials for medicine for diseases I've never heard of, old people
complications I won't have for another 40 or 50 years, etc. Waste of my
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:48:11AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> What is lost if AT&T or Comcast sells my anonymized usage habits?
They're NOT anonymized. Aren't you paying attention?
Anonymization -- *real* anonymization -- is hard. Hard means expensive.
It also reduces the sale price of the d
And so what if it is?
What's the downside here?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Kulawiec"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:24:31 AM
Subject: Re: EFF Call f
Mike:
I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network professional, but
I hope you know I’ve been doing “ISP stuff” for a couple decades. I know how to
work the system. There really are not any other broadband providers in my area.
Hell, LTE doesn’t even work well in my house, and
On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> ISPs lying? Sounds like something for the courts, not capitol hill.
You can’t sue someone because they do something you do not like. Well, you can,
but you won’t win.
I guess you could ask for the providers to put it in their terms of servi
I know most of the people in the thread have been doing this a long time, the
others I just don't know anything about them.
FWIW: Glass has been running an ISP for 20 - 25 years, has given
Congressional\FCC testimony, etc. He's not an industry slouch either, just with
a different political sta
Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be.
Joe Loiacono
From: Mike Hammett
To:
Cc: NANOG list
Date: 03/29/2017 09:13 AM
Subject:Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
Sent by:"NAN
On 03/29/2017 04:17 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't
know about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects
missed it, or seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all
the messages.
I don't think they did miss it per
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb wrote:
> Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is
> concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing
> the following:
>
> SPF: Each domain adds a list of IP Addresses that are allowed to send
> e-mai
Bill,
If that's the case, then Microsoft appears to be at fault here. I'll try
opening a ticket (I know. Windmills :)
-mel
On Mar 29, 2017, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb
mailto:daknob@gmail.com>> wrote:
Usually mailing
On 03/29/2017 09:12 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Both SPF and DKIM are meant to be checked against the domain in the
envelope sender (SMTP protocol-level return address) which the NANOG list
sets to nanog-boun...@nanog.org. Checking against the message header "from"
address is an incorrect implement
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Grant Taylor via NANOG
wrote:
> Every SPF implementation I've seen has checked the SMTP envelope FROM
> address /and/ the RFC 822 From: header address.
>
Hi Grant,
The gold standard, Spamassassin, does not. Indeed, the message to which I
reply was scored by spa
Indeed, in more detail (which I omitted for simplicity), these checks are
performed in a series of headers, the last of which is the From: header. I
think the “envelope-from” is either the first or the second in this 5-point
list.
That said, there are a lot of implementations out there that do n
Alexa ran into this problem...
https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-unit-settles-privacy-lawsuit/
Tim
On 3/28/17 11:45 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> No ISPs have any right to market our customers browsing history, and
> currently that practice is illegal unless the customer opts in. In my
> opinion, on
On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Having worked networks with massive bandwidth, networks with a single T1
> (don’t ask, just Google what a T1 is, er, was)
I've lurked on this mailing list for months, and never felt obligated to
chime in until now.
Thanks for reminding me exactly
All if you are in a tizzy over a policy that's been dead for a while.
<
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/30/att-internet-fees-privacy/%3Fsource%3Ddam
>
--
Ryan Stoner
On Mar 29, 2017 6:26 AM, "Rich Kulawiec" wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:48:11AM -0500, Mike Hamme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> The gold standard, Spamassassin, does not. Indeed, the message to
> which I reply was scored by spam assassin as "SPF_PASS" even though
> you do not include NANOG's servers in the SPF record
In a message written on Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:58:38AM -0600, Grant Taylor via
NANOG wrote:
> I also strongly recommend that mailing lists be viewed as an entity unto
> themselves. I.e. they receive the email, process it, and generate a new
> email /from/ /their/ /own/ /address/ with very simi
On Wednesday 29 March 2017 11:12:33 William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 AM, DaKnOb wrote:
> > Usually mailing lists act like e-mail spoofers as far as SPF and DKIM is
> > concerned. These two systems above try to minimize spoofed e-mail by doing
> > the following:
> >
> > SPF: Ea
* Grant Taylor via NANOG:
> On 03/29/2017 04:17 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> Thanks for the very clear explanation. I use DKIM and SPF, but didn't
>> know about this corner case. I'm surprised the SPF, etc architects
>> missed it, or seem to have. In any event, I seem to be getting all
>> the message
On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> While I haven't looked at real mailing list software recently
> (e.g. mailman) when I last did they didn't suport this either and
> it took a pile of 3rd party hacks to make it work.
The latest versions of Mailman (2.1.23 and 3.0.0) both work r
Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon
(external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since their
OpenDNS acquisition, I’ve found the service not working reliably, as in I
receive no alerts even when I’m intentionally taking one of our
Sorry guys. A bit of Percocet on the brain here. Yay broken spine! I meant
a tizzy about AT&T and their spying on home fiber customers. They claim
they don't do it anymore and offer the lower price to everyone.
--
Ryan Stoner
On Mar 29, 2017 2:17 PM, wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> No, we're in a tizzy over
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Alan Hodgson
wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 March 2017 11:12:33 William Herrin wrote:
> > Both SPF and DKIM are meant to be checked against the domain in the
> > envelope sender (SMTP protocol-level return address) which the NANOG list
> > sets to nanog-boun...@nanog.o
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
>
> Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be.
>
> Joe Loiacono
>
And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill.
Read the actual Report and Order:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/F
Hey,
maybe is https://www.thousandeyes.com/ a option.
Best,
Jan-Philipp
Am 29.03.17 um 21:21 schrieb David Hubbard:
Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon
(external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since their
OpenDNS acquisiti
+1bazillion What mark said!
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> >
> > Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be.
> >
> > Joe Loiacono
> >
>
> And there you have much of the problem with thi
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:02:45 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said:
> And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill.
Hate to break it to you, but most of the gripes you have here are things
you really *want* to do - they're things that reduce your personal liability
and/or chance of ending u
Hi David,
My secret spy satellite informs me that David Hubbard wrote On
2017-03-29, 12:21 PM:
> Anyone have recommendations for an alternative service that works like bgpmon
> (external reachability/peer monitoring, route hijack alerts, etc)? Since
> their OpenDNS acquisition, I’ve found the s
The purpose of SPF is to REJECT messages before the data phase. This cannot be
done if you are checking the RFC-822 From: header since that requires accepting
the message and invalidates the entire purpose of SPF.
I have never seen an SPF implementation that uses the RFC-822 header From.
Doi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 09:24 -0700, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> So for DMARC+SPF to pass not only must the message come from a source
> authorized by the envelope sender domain, but that domain must be the
> same domain (or parent domain or subdomain) of t
I'm not saying such detailed regulation is really necessary, but it's not
really a huge barrier either. Just try to open a food truck (all the rage these
ads). You'll find many more regulations than this.
The answer to over regulation is political lobbying. A good idea would be
requiring retir
We are going to be trying ThousandEyes... They provide flexible alerting rules
for various BGP issues and their visualization is excellent, kind of like
BGPlay on steroids...
Bill
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard
Sent: Wednesday
Why aren't _ALL_ consumer privacy regulations managed by the FTC?
Why is the FCC needed here?
-Dan
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be.
Joe Loiacono
And there
On Wednesday 29 March 2017 14:28:30 Carl Byington wrote:
> For an example of that (unless I am misunderstanding something), we
> have:
>
> --> Hello marketo-email.box.com [192.28.147.169], pleased to meet you
> <-- MAIL FROM:<$mun...@marketo-email.box.com>
> <-- RCPT TO: ...
>
> dkim pass head
The vast majority of obligations you describe continue to exist and don't
have anything to do with this bill.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> >
> > Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:02:45 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said:
>
>> And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but most of the gripes you have here are things
> you really *want* to do
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> Why aren't _ALL_ consumer privacy regulations managed by the FTC?
>
> Why is the FCC needed here?
>
> -Dan
This was a consequence of the FCC declaring "information services” a Title II
service in an attempt to avoid losing yet another law
I just signed up for the free account .. gonna give a spin
Victor
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Murphy, William
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:51 PM
To: 'David Hubbard' ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Alternatives to bgpmon?
We are going
In message <2066629.bbq8kxn...@skynet.simkin.ca>, Alan Hodgson writes:
> On Wednesday 29 March 2017 14:28:30 Carl Byington wrote:
> > For an example of that (unless I am misunderstanding something), we
> > have:
> >
> > --> Hello marketo-email.box.com [192.28.147.169], pleased to meet you
> > <
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 15:21 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Well you should be checking the correct TXT record for SPF.
> dig marketo-email.box.com txt +short
> "v=spf1 ip4:192.28.147.168 ip4:192.28.147.169 -all"
Hm, a closer reading of rfc7489 sheds
46 matches
Mail list logo
