On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman wrote:
>“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>scheduled programming.”
>Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
I think that is closing t
On Monday, 5 August, 2019 10:25, Bryan Fields wrote:
>I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their
>customer. This was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least
>30 days under any hosting contract. This scares the shit
>out of me as a customer; could cloudflare decide to give m
>Hey, I got my Network+ too. dafuq is a "BGP"?
That's what the British get after too much Beer-o-clock. A Bloody-Good-Puking
...
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Tuesday, 6 August, 2019 12:17, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
...
>John Deaux is from London, and a citizen of the UK. John is working
>in the U.S., at a tech company in Palo Alto, California. John has a
>Gmail account, and uses Dropbox to store his photos. A law
>enforcement agency in the
On Tuesday, 6 August, 2019 13:21, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 12:54:55 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>> I realize that the purpose of the terms "serve a demand" if legal
>> globedey-glook phrased to pompously instill in the reader some
>&
On Wednesday, 7 August, 2019 13:38, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote
>(to >both customers and the public), and support various curation
>services like netnanny.
IANAP (I Am Not A Psychiatrist) however, persons who, when reading or hear
Cannot access your website. Just has a spinning colostomy bag. Too much
malicious javascript and malicious trackers.
If you expect people to visit the website, perhaps you should make it more
useable, because at the moment, it is completely and utterly useless!
And there is no way I am goin
On Thursday, 8 August, 2019 13:43, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>Just as well as the proper signature divider in an email is actually
>“dash dash space”
>\o/
>Site works just fine. Doubt javascript here is of any concern to
>anyone whatsoever.
>Just sayin
qualtics.com loads a blacklisted malicious
For efficiency of censorship. If you want to stop some domain name from
resolving you have to get everyone on the planet to block that DNS resolution
in their recursive resolver. However, if everyone uses the same single DNS
server operated by a single entity, then you only have to coerce th
Fascinating. What is the security threat I wonder, that there is no JavaScript?
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG On Behalf Of Scott Weeks
>Sent: Monday, 23 September, 2019 13:06
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Colombia Network Operators Group
>
>
>
>--- meh...@akcin.net wrote:
>From
RIR Delegations data is public.
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/resource-guidelines/rir-statistics-exchange-format/
The various RIR delegation statistics can be gotten from:
https://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/delegated-afrinic-latest
https://ftp.apnic.net/
On Tuesday, 1 October, 2019 01:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:56:33PM -0400, Brandon Martin
wrote
>> It's use-application-dns.net. NXDOMAIN it, and Mozilla (at least)
>> will go back to using your local DNS server list as per usual.
> Unless, I hope, the user exp
On Tuesday, 1 October, 2019 22:15, David Conrad wrote:
>DoH (and DoT) encrypt (and authenticate) the application <-> recursive
>resolver channel (NOT the DNS data) which I gather some view as an attack
>vector.
Actually no. DoH and DoT encrypt the application <-> recursive resolver
applicati
On Wednesday, 2 October, 2019 03:55, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
wrote:
>However: because the browser cannot know for sure that the DNS traffic
>is being routed over a secure channel, and browsers are being used for
>all sorts of sensitive communication, it could check, and try to assist
>the user.
Se
On Wednesday, 2 October, 2019 10:55, Sabri Berisha
wrote:
>> Firefox and Chrome now reportedly use it unless you tell them not to.
>Just imagine how this list would explode if BGP implementations would all
>of a sudden have their default behavior changed to include auto-
>negotiated MD5 passwor
On Wednesday, 2 October, 2019 14:52, John Levine wrote:
>I think in the outside world you'll find very little support for an
>argument that filtering DNS is fundamentally broken.
Well, it is certainly trivial to bypass. Therefore it is a fantastic tools for
tyrants and other fuckwads -- just
On Wednesday, 2 October, 2019 15:21, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>>HTTP/451
>>
>> Completely different protocol than what the rest of this thread is
>> about, much more invasive wrt possibility of logging, and requires
>> a lot more infrastructure and actual lying in DNS to make work.
>
>Closed capti
Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
>Livingood, Jason wrote:
>
>> The challenge of course is that in the absence of a silver bullet
>> solution, that people working to combat all forms of childsorship
>> exploitation are simultaneously trying several things, ranging from
>> going to the source as you suggest
On Thursday, 3 October, 2019 11:50, Fred Baker wrote:
> A security geek would be all over me - "too many clues!".
Anyone who says something like that is not a "security geek". They are a
"security poser", interested primarily in "security by obscurity" and "security
theatre", and have no
On Friday, 4 October, 2019 16:05, William Herrin wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:28 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 October, 2019 11:50, Fred Baker
>> wrote:
>>> A security geek would be all over me - "too many clues!".
>> Anyone who say
On Monday, 7 October, 2019 08:55, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Otherwise, an impressive amount of WTF. My favorite: "while
>> communication by servers ___on the ground___ might take hundreds of
>> milliseconds, in the cloud the s
>Not everyone attacking your systems is going to have the skills or
>knowledge to get in though - simple tricks (like hiding what web server
>you use) can prevent casual attacks from script kiddies and others who
>aren't committed to targeting you, freeing your security teams to focus
>on the serio
On Tuesday, 8 October, 2019 11:03, William Herrin wrote:
>Limiting the server banner so it doesn't tell an adversary the exact OS-
>specific binary you're using has a near-zero cost and forces an adversary
>to expend more effort searching for a vulnerability. It doesn't magically
>protect you f
od (2) instead.
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven
says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: Mark Collins
>Sent: Tuesday, 8 October, 2019 12:17
>To: Keith Medcalf ; nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Update
On Sunday, 20 October, 2019 06:08, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>Hank Nussbacher writes:
>> Centralized Internet routing - sounds like DoH for BGP.
>Great idea! Why don't we just run BGP over HTTPS? Everyone already has
>a browser, so we can get rid of all these expensive routers.
>The future is BoH
>On 21/10/19 6:30 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Yes, and I really like Julien's proposal. It even looks pretty
>> complete. There are just a few details missing around how to make the
>> MD5 => TLS transition smooth.
>At least for those systems that run on Linux (which is most all of the
>major's
On Monday, 21 October, 2019 09:44, Robert McKay wrote:
>On 2019-10-21 16:30, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> Why do you need to do anything? TLS is Transport Layer Security and
>> it's sole purpose is to protect communications from eavesdropping or
>> modification by
>TLS in the traditional sense 'requires' that there be an X.509
>certificate to use in authenticating (and to some extent authorizing -
>can you be a CA? sign email? etc...) endpoints, ideally you do 'tls
>mutual authentication'...
That is incorrect.
I believe that an endpoint (lets call it Alice
On Tuesday, 22 October, 2019 13:26, Jared Mauch
wrote:
>No,
>> On Oct 22, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Keith Medcalf
wrote:
>> At this point further communications are encrypted and secure against
>>eavesdropping.
>The problem isn't the protocol being eavesdropped on. T
On Wednesday, 23 October, 2019 18:36, Brandon Applegate
wrote:
>Bigger picture, I think that (unfortunately) we will see more and more
>problems like this. With the large providers running so much (as you
>mentioned - “monoculture”), and their services tending toward the “black
>box” ... I do
Bwahahahaha!
It is internally inconsistent. Perhaps this is just shoddy reporting,
or perhaps the whole thing is just someone's idea of a wet dream.
"The line will begin in North Pole, Alaska and will travel through
Canada, connecting with Canadian carriers, where it will finally connect
with
>"Internet penetration and complexity has vastly grown in Iran
>over the past decade, but the country’s users still connect
>to the global network through just two gateways. Both are
>controlled by the regime, and can be blocked when it chooses."
>
>"Access to the internet is gradually being rest
On Friday, 29 November, 2019 05:43, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
>I'm not conviced music really learned either, once CDs are gone
>there will be little access to reasonable quality uncompressed
>downloads as everyone chases quite compressed streams.
There are quite a lot of places where you can
On Wednesday, 4 December, 2019 23:24, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>But that's ok, the new masters of this universe will just charge both
>ends for each and every email (perhaps a few included free with your
>Hulu or Netflix subscription) and old timers will talk about how great
>it was back in the
"CallerID" is a misnomer. It is actually the "Advertized ID". However, the
telco's realized you would not pay to receive advertizing so they renamed it to
something they thought you would pay for.
Pretty canny business model eh? And apparently y'all fell for it, thinking it
was related to
sting) available for extra
charge.
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>>
>> "CallerID" is a misnomer. It is actually the "Advertized ID".
>However, the telco's realized you would not pay to receive advertizing
so
>they renamed it to something
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 13:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
>Plus if it didn't work well/too cumbersome/etc with email, it probably
>won't be any better with voice. We have lots of experience with what
>doesn't work for email.
I really do not care. It is my e-mail server. It is my telephone.
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 14:02, Michael Homas wrote:
>There are robocalls that you want to get. Here in california, our
>wonderful electric company sends out robocalls when they are going to
>cut our electricity so they don't get blamed for burning down cities
>(and then still manage to an
As long as that tactical air strike uses MIRV nuclear warheads so none of the
little f*ckers get away ...
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG On Behalf Of
>Jeff Shultz
>
This, of course, will do no good. These so called "Robocalls" are exactly
that. They generate a random number to call and play the silly canned message.
If you press whatever the code is to talk to the idiots, they then hand off
the call to a call center.
You should ALWAYS talk to the call
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 19:07, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:02:42 -0700, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>> That stupid people do stupid things has no bearing on me. If there
is
>> a legal requirement for these people to be "notifying"
On Friday, 20 December, 2019 10:57, Mark Milhollan wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>>You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller. The
>>robocaller (the one playing the message) is relatively local and the
>>cost of that call is mini
>I just looked up Telsa's battery packs and they seem to be between
>60-100kwh. Our daily use is about 30kwh in the fall, so it's only 2-3
>days. Admittedly we can turn off the hot tub, water heater, etc to
>stretch it out. And of course, that means that you can't drive it... The
>one thing that
Why would anyone with anything important to say use somethingmail.com
Somethingmail.com is not e-mail. It is a Giggle Gaggle Google thing.
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From:
On Monday, 30 December, 2019 13:24, Matthew Petach
wrote:
>Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to
>cell tower handoffs when moving. It's fine when you're
>stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from
>one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping
>> Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
>> or need 25mbits to your phone,
>Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
I can only talk to one party at a time, so there is no need for more than a
single bearer channel worth of bandwidth.
--
The fact that there's a Highway
>> It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
>> consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
>> really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
>> the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
>> deployment,
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 02:48, Antonios Chariton
wrote:
>Ignoring the obvious reasons why TLS is needed and HTTP should not be
>used,
I am curious -- what exactly are those "obvious reasons"? (And for the record
HTTP *IS* being used, it is just being tunneled inside a TLS connection).
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 04:44, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
>Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement
>to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits?
>Let that sink in.
TLS 1.2 as deployed in Web Browsers does not authenticate th
On Friday, 3 January, 2020 10:53, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:
>>> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
>>> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd
>>> choose?
>> They’d probably choo
High Touch / Low Touch
Is this a measure of the amount of fiddle diddling required to get the chip to
work as documented, or is it some other kind of code?
For example a "High Touch" chip needs lots of fiddle farting because it was
designed by a moron and every possible thing that can be progr
Got it, thanks for the explanation!
> -Original Message-
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Sunday, 24 April, 2016 11:03
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Arista Routing Solutions
>
> On 24 April 2016 at 05:14, Keith Medcalf wrote
I've been told by various PCI auditors that a noncommercial/FOSS firewall could
pass as long as you have implemented the necessary controls such as
encryption/logging/management and passing actual testing.
--
Keith Stokes
> On May 6, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> T
gh them.
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Keith Stokes
mailto:kei...@neilltech.com>> wrote:
I've been told by various PCI auditors that a noncommercial/FOSS firewall could
pass as long as you have implemented the necessary controls such as
encryption/logging/management and passing
How do you show proof of self-insurance?
Or is this an extortion racket?
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chris McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, 23 June, 2016 09:23
> To: nanog list
> Subject: 60 hudson - insurance?
>
> are others being told that
> There is no difference between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to
> firewalls and reachability. It is worth noting that hosts which
> support IPv6 are typically a lot more secure than older IPv4-only
> hosts. As an example every version of Windows that ships with IPv6
> support also ships with the f
now because I
never ran it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Spencer Ryan [mailto:sr...@arbor.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2016 10:08
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: RE: IPv6 deployment excuses
>
> Windows 8 and 10 with t
s
>
> Security that is too strict will be disabled and be far less effective
> than proper security measures. Security zealots are often blind to that.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest
POSIX (Unix) (normal) time does not have leap seconds.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) minute has exactly 60 seconds.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) hour has exactly 60 minutes.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) day has exactly 24 hours.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) year has 365 days, unless it is a leap year,
://www.angryox.com/
---
---
Keith Stokes
>> wrote:
On 2016-08-12 11:36 AM, Keith Stokes wrote:
Route53 can get expensive for lots of domains. Queries are cheap with the first
1M free, but if you have 1000 domains you’ll pay $500/month.
If you had 1000 domains, you'd pay $110/month, not $500. The first 25 domains
at $0.50
a
different/better one in return.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Keith Stokes wrote:
Route53 can get expensive for lots of domains. Queries are cheap with the
first 1M free, but if you have 1000 domains you’ll pay $500/month.
You can build dedicated servers in multiple AZs and data centers able to
handle that m
PS, etc).
c) What extent of diversity were you able to obtain vs. your other AC
circuits (unique riser? separate transformer? separate power feed from
second route into the building?)
---
Keith Stokes
t it's elementary!" Watson retorted
:)
alan
--
Ken Chase - Toronto Canada
---
Keith Stokes
Assuming all devices are vulnerable isn't a bad start.
--
Keith Stokes
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:37, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> All the more reason to educate people TODAY on why having vulnerable d
> It's also generally counter to them being available outside of that
> network.
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the little
buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet (or you private networks).
Even if you lock you pet mouse in a cage, you can still fee
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> > This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the
> little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
> Problem is that many of these gad
Why would the provider want to do anything? They suuport (make money from)
their cudtomers. And the more traffic the send/receive, the more money the
providers make.
Wouldn't surprise me if the providers were selling access to their customers
networks to the botherders so they could make mone
> > The problem is in allowing inbound connections and going as far as doing
> > UPnP to tell the CPE router to open a inbound door to let hackers loging
> > to that IoT pet feeder to turn it into an agressive DNS destroyer.
> Well yes. uPnP is a problem precisely because it is some random devic
On Thursday, 27 October, 2016 22:09, Eliot Lear said:
> On 10/28/16 1:55 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> >>> The problem is in allowing inbound connections and going as far as
> doing
> >>> UPnP to tell the CPE router to open a inbound door to let hackers
> loging
On Friday, 28 October, 2016 19:37, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> >> 1b) anti spam filters believe in the magic of checking
> >> forward/reverse match.
> > Someone in this thread said that only malware-infested end-users are
> > behind IP addresses wi
ency/agencies would be contacted?
This question is best answered by an attorney with expertise in this area
and with specific knowledge of your operation.
---rsk
---
Keith Stokes
On Tuesday, 7 February, 2017 06:59, Ray Soucy said:
> I think the fundamental problem here is that these devices aren't good
> network citizens in the first place. The odds of getting them to add
> functionality to support a new protocol are even likely than getting them
> to not have open servi
>> "I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is
>> publishing data on the Internet. In almost all other forms
>> of communication, there is some accountability for the
>> origination of information."
>...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant"
>comes to mind.
eworld.com]
>Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2018 14:35
>To: Aaron C. de Bruyn
>Cc: Keith Medcalf; nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>
>
>On April 20, 2018 at 20:36 nanog@nanog.org (Aaron C. de Bruyn via
>NANOG) wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:
>host 23.227.197.10
10.197.227.23.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer horsezipsworld.com.
>host horsezipsworld.com
horsezipsworld.com has address 23.227.197.11
horsezipsworld.com mail is handled by 10 mail.horsezipsworld.com.
>host mail.horsezipsworld.com
mail.horsezipsworld.com has address 23.227.1
>I'm also not foolish enough to think this thread will affect the
>encrypt-everything crowd as it is more of a religion\ideology than a
>practical matter. However, maybe it'll shed some light on technical
>ways of dealing with this at the service-provider level or plant some
>doubt in someone's m
Neither seem to work without disabling security first.
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bryan
>Holloway
>Sent: Monday, 1
People stream HD Video in the Water Closet? I don't think my 80" HDTV would
fit in there!
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus@
My VT52 does not do fonts ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hamel
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 June, 2018 14:54
>To: ahe
sense. As
part of that I have a service that monitors people applying for microwave
transmitters within a few hundred miles. You’d be surprised how many links are
applied for every month.
--
Keith Stokes
Neill Technologies
> On Jul 14, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Miles Fidelman
> wrote:
&
Whats WiFi? Is that the "noise" that escapes from the copper cables? Switch
to optical fibre, it does not emit RF noise ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mail
To her, the power company sucks if
the lights go out. In the worst case, if her power starts a fire, she's
calling the fire department.
Mark.
---
Keith Stokes
Neill Technologies
Typical electrical breakers are not instantaneous devices and likely will not
trip at .5% over rated load until they've been run near limit for extended
periods of time.
-----
Keith Stokes
> On Jul 22, 2018, at 5:52 AM, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Ju
>The point of the study in proposed bill is customers of Netflix and
>Spotify (just to pick on them because everyone seems too) watching videos
>on "Smart TVs" or listening on "Smart Speakers" may not realize those
>devices won't get emergency alerts like their old-fashion AM/FM radios
>and over-th
>For example just because they sent you a seemingly malformed HTTP
>request, and given that 4xx is for error codes, doesn't mean you
>should return "420 You must be high!" and expect to be understood.
Actually, you can, and the sender of the request MUST understand.
The relevant part of the appl
>> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it).
"just static content" would be more accurate ...
>I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like
>bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses,
>equipment status, and other things that
To get back to the original question regarding the "diameter" of the Internet,
it would appear to me that we are easily looking at about 30 to 40 hops just
within North America -- and easily double that to reach the rest of the
Internet outside of North America. Of course, the "Top 5 Channels
> From what I'm aware of the US is currently experiencing issues
>with FB, Instagram and LastPass. The latter is impacting business for
>us. Coincidence? Maybe. The root cause will certainly be
>interesting.
Why don't you just write all your password on big sheets of construction paper
a
> They put IP of some government or critical (for example,
> VISA/Mastercard processing) sites in their blocked
> domain - and those victim sites will be blocked.
> This trolling is very popular in Russia, for example.
This should be very popular everywhere in the free world -- explaining why it
>> Agreed, and I do get unsolicited Linkedin requests quite often.
>> Sometimes, this is clearly the result of someone scraping a list
>> like NANOG in an effort to drum up new business/contacts. Those
>> end up in the bitbucket.
> When you turn down a connection there should be "I don't know thi
tus and the outbound e-mails.
--
Keith Stokes
SalonBiz, Inc
On Dec 15, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Colton Conor
mailto:colton.co...@gmail.com>> wrote:
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL
The problem I am trying to solve is to accurately be able to tell a customer if
their home internet connection was u
> It could have been worse:
> https://www.cio.com.au/article/65115/all_systems_down/
"Make network changes only between 2am and 5am on weekends."
Wow. Just wow. I suppose the IT types are considerably different than Process
Operations. Our rule is to only make changes scheduled at 09:00 (or
On Sunday, 13 January, 2019 12:51, Mike Hammet wrote:
>People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
There is another kind of e-mail? Or are you referring to Web-Pages-over-SMTP?
Whenever someone has a "experience" while reading an e-mail message or viewing
a web page, one has to wonder what sort of drugs they are on ... It is the LSD
that provides the "experience", not whether you are viewing an e-mail message
or a web-page-over-SMTP ...
Please experience the wonder
On Tuesday, 15 January, 2019 12:10, James Downs wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:46:07PM +0100, Tei wrote:
>> Is very hard to replace a open protocol, wrapping may work if the
>> protocol is mostly abandoned (IRC) but thats not the case for
>> email.
> IRC is far from abandonded. There are
However, like the Internet Off switch installed in the Pentagon after 911
(which shutdown the DNS Severs), you may find that you have to reboot the
Internet so you can upload your Save the World video to Twitter ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says
The best time is usually a Wednesday at Noon or 11:00 in the impacted timezone.
Of course, if the impact is worldwide then that would probably be UT1 :)
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Mess
>Unfortunately, you may have to wait several weeks or even a month for
>databases to update.
Don't be silly! It takes nanoseconds to update the database once "the proper
motivation" is present to encourage the pressing of the key.
It may take weeks of months for the update to entered into th
On Friday, 22 February, 2019 09:36, Miles Fidelman :
> But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has
> ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email
> list) --- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than
> just the customers of that
101 - 200 of 417 matches
Mail list logo
