On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 21:55 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Looks more like a routing issue. Looks like the .MIL operators put
> all their eggs into one basket. 8-(
>From .uk, the .pac and .con servers respond fine but the .eur servers
don't. Go figure.
Graeme
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:34 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> I'm guessing whatever the issue is has been resolved, or the storm has
> passed?
http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm:1/di:1/do:1/ddo:0
Not that it would have been much use to you at the time.
Graeme
Once upon a time, whilst working for a fairly well-known UK domain
registration company, I put together a system built on an early version
of the BIND-DLZ patchset against BIND 9.2.5 (If I recall correctly).
It used MySQL as the backend database (because that's what the
registration system used fo
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:12 -0500, "Ronald Cotoni"
wrote:
> And I still have yet to get someone from sorbs to contact me off list. I
> wonder if they actually read email (highly doubtful at this point)
I can almost guarantee that they don't subscribe to NANOG, so posting
here will make next to n
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8163190.stm
Some of it is right. Some of it is wrong. All of it makes for
interesting reading from the point of view of a layperson.
We are all, apparently, unsung heroes...
Graeme
PS Yes, there's plenty to tear apart in the article. Don't shoot the
messenger
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:35 -0500, Marc Powell wrote:
> I don't think they watch here; at least I've never seen Michelle post
> here.
I've had confirmation from Michelle personally this morning (following a
similar question elsewhere) that the SORBS systems are indeed
relocating. From a previous
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:43 -0500, Reynold Guerrier wrote:
> My subscription to NANOG aged 3 months ago and I am receiving this spam too.
> And this is my first post. I effectively think that someone might have crack
> the email database of the Nanog list.
Funny; I'm not in that sort of business a
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 17:19 -0800, JC Dill wrote:
> The particular email address ceased being used (by me) over a year ago,
> but suddenly 4 weeks ago I was "subscribed" to their mailing list.
> Apparently the common theme is that we all registered for the VON
> conference at one point.
Aha, l
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:55 -0600, Todd T. Fries forwarded:
> From: ISPrime Support
> These are the result of a spoofed dns recursion attack against our servers.
> The actual packets in question (the ones reaching your servers) do NOT
> originate from our network as such there is no way for us
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 12:27 -0500, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> Representing ISPrime here.
Well... representing myself and nobody else, so if that stretches my
credibility thin so be it.
> It's somewhat absurd to suggest that we are attacking our own
> nameservers, I assure you, we didn't spend many
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 16:01 +0100, marc wrote:
> well the server is not the problem ;)
>
> but where can i get the .sdp file ;)
http://nanog.org/streaming.php
Hi
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> At 12:07:16 local time here in sweden, I saw a new address 70.86.80.98.
> At 12:09:36 another new address 64.57.246.123
> At 12:20:10 the address 70.86.80.98 started to ask for funny domain name like:
> "pjphcdfwudgaaabaaac
Meta: I'm one of the mailop list admins...
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 07:50 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Anybody actually on that list? Most of the serious mailops work is on
> some other, entirely different lists.
There are almost 400 on the list now, and it grows with every single
mention
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 19:30 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> if you are a nomintet voting member or know someone who is, i strongly
> encourage you to read these two documents,
Results are that of the two new board members, one was a candidate
campaigning for change within the organisation (Randy used o
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 17:02 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
> I dont trust it:
Quite right too, it's a spear-phishing attack. This is currently an
almost daily occurrence for .edu domains.
The compromised accounts are frequently abused via webmail systems,
being used to send out more scams.
The scam
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 18:14 -0400, Pete Carah wrote:
> I saw much more than this *from the same address* starting two days ago,
> and from several other blocks belonging to the same university starting
> last week, to my home router and another server. So far my better
> connected servers haven
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 23:25 +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> I saw this earlier in the week, along with queries for a domain name
> which happens to have been registered by Dan Kaminsky, so I emailed him
> about it. The addresses in question at Georgia Tech appear to be in use
> as part
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:45 -0500, Jeffrey Negro wrote:
> Thanks for your input on this. My main concern is mail filters at the
> end users side thinking that our mail servers are spoofing our
> customer's domain.
If you really feel that SPF is going to help, then keep all the mail in
your domain
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:00 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> In that case, how do you run your current service:
> http://www.vialtus.com/en/Solutions/Hosting-and-Datacentre-Services/Security-Solutions/Distributed-Denial-of-Service-Protection.aspx
It says how, right on that page. Not Arbor.
Graeme
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 15:12 -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> Lots of gear has a button/jumper/pop_the_CMOS
> battery/other_physical_presence_magic to reset things to factory state,
> including the default pw. The threat went on to why default passwords are
> bad, to passwords on the bottom of th
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 06:27 +, John Levine wrote:
> In my experience, they're pretty reasonable. I would talk to them (or
> one of their datafeed sales agents) before assuming that they won't
> sell you the service you need.
They are indeed. In my day job, a large group of related members of
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 14:40 -0500, Dave Sparro wrote:
> Their list, their rules; but it is indeed strange to me.
Not too strange: Little Bobby probably does one or two jobs and goes
away, leaving the system to run by itself. the SpamAssassin people
receive nothing from his choice of software.
If B
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:27 -0800, Shon Elliott wrote:
> So really, my customers, and myself are victims of
> Spamcop's blocking of Facebook.
I forget how far back in this thread someone said:
Spamcop *listed* Facebook for valid reasons according to their published
listing criteria.
Other people
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:08 -0600, David E. Smith wrote:
> As long as we're going off-topic, might as well go all the way :V
Well, the conversation has continued here despite repeated mentions of
mai...@mailop.org so unless the MLC deem it off-topic and squash the
thread I guess it'll rumble on.
24 matches
Mail list logo
