Re: [AusNOG] iiNet / Westnet - E-Mail Rejection from Office365

[Peter Fern]

On 22/6/21 11:26 pm, David Moyle wrote:


Hi AusNOG Team,

Chasing someone who can assist with iiNet / Westnet e-mail delivery – 
I have reports in the past week from clients running on Office365 
(which I can also confirm with my own Office365 tenant) of SPF Failure 
when emailing into Westnet/iiNet.




Your SPF record includes "spf.protection.outlook.com", which has no TXT 
records associated with it. Sounds like an Office365 problem.


___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] iiNet / Westnet - E-Mail Rejection from Office365

[Peter Fern]

On 23/6/21 10:42 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> On 23 Jun 2021, at 10:33, Peter Fern  wrote:
>>
>> On 22/6/21 11:26 pm, David Moyle wrote:
>>> Hi AusNOG Team,
>>>
>>>
>>> Chasing someone who can assist with iiNet / Westnet e-mail delivery 
– I have reports in the past week from clients running on Office365 
(which I can also confirm with my own Office365 tenant) of SPF Failure 
when emailing into Westnet/iiNet.

>>>
>>
>>
>> Your SPF record includes "spf.protection.outlook.com", which has no 
TXT records associated with it. Sounds like an Office365 problem.

>
> Both servers are returning records for me currently.


Returns results for me now too, perhaps it's been flaky?
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] dark fibre encryption

[Peter Fern]

On 7/4/20 1:01 pm, Dale Shaw wrote:

Tin foil hat: off
Crackpot mode: disabled
Backyard baked bean-filled bunker: non-existent

Well, I'm not sure what you're implying here, but having met the 
Senetas folks at trade shows, and listened to their CTO (Julian Fay) 
talk crypto on the Risky Business podcast, my only take-away is that 
they seem like a bunch of friendly, down-to-Earth, super-cluey crypto 
nuts, with widely used/well respected products.


Who, as an Australian company, are bound by our ludicrous Access and 
Assistance Bill, requiring them to be able to break the crypto on their 
devices.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] It’s the end of the century….Who wants a new Career @ Micron21 ?

[Peter Fern]

On 30/12/19 2:56 pm, James Braunegg wrote:


Dear AusNOG

Happy End of 2019 and bring on 2020 … I hope its extremely successful 
for everyone within the AusNOG community.




I'd tend to call this the end of a decade, but I suppose it's always the 
end of the century if we can pick an arbitrary starting point ;-)


___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] FTTC

[Peter Fern]

Wasn't the Optus Cable infrastructure essentially deemed beyond recovery 
after wasting buckets of money on it, and so those areas are being 
rolled FttC from scratch?


On 1/5/19 12:31 pm, Philip Loenneker wrote:


Do you mean HFC?

Regards,

*Philip Loenneker | Network Engineer**| TasmaNet*

*From:*Skeeve Stevens 
*Sent:* Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:28 AM
*To:* Philip Loenneker 
*Cc:* Nathan Brookfield ; 
 

*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] FTTC

How do you think the Optus Cable infrastructure integrated with the FTTC?

...Skeeve

--

Skeeve Stevens - Director - Future Crime Agency

Email: skeeve@futurecrime.agency  ; 
Skype: skeeve


Website: futurecrime.agency  ; Twitter: 
@_FutureCrime 


Linkedin: /in/skeeve  ; Facebook: 
FutureCrimeAgency 


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:01 AM Philip Loenneker 
> wrote:


I remember asking them this same question, and I **think** they
said you can, but I couldn’t see it in my notes… logic says that
any copper pair could be used for FttC, however since they have
gear in the pits that handle a limited number of services each,
they may limit the number of services per premises. Obviously MDU
would be a special case and should use FttB.

I do have a note that ordering FttC on inactive copper pairs has
the same fees as FttN, which is around $300 once-off.

Regards,

*Philip Loenneker | Network Engineer**| TasmaNet*

*From:*Skeeve Stevens mailto:ausnog@futurecrime.agency>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, 1 May 2019 3:02 AM
*To:* Philip Loenneker mailto:philip.loenne...@tasmanet.com.au>>
*Cc:* Nathan Brookfield mailto:nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au>>;
mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>>
mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>>
*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] FTTC

Is it possible to order more than one lead-in?


...Skeeve

--

Skeeve Stevens - Director - Future Crime Agency

Email: skeeve@futurecrime.agency
 ; Skype: skeeve

Website: futurecrime.agency  ;
Twitter: @_FutureCrime 

Linkedin: /in/skeeve
 ; Facebook: FutureCrimeAgency


On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:28 AM Philip Loenneker
mailto:philip.loenne...@tasmanet.com.au>> wrote:

From the horses mouth…


https://www.nbnco.com.au/residential/learn/network-technology/fibre-to-the-curb-explained-fttc

But basically what Nathan said. You only get 1 ethernet port.

Regards,

*Philip Loenneker | Network Engineer**| TasmaNet*

40-50 Innovation Drive, Dowsing Point, Tas 7010, Australia

P: 1300 792 711

philip.loenne...@tasmanet.com.au


_www.tasmanet.com.au _

*From:*AusNOG mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net>> *On Behalf Of
*Nathan Brookfield
*Sent:* Monday, 29 April 2019 11:03 PM
*To:* Skeeve Stevens mailto:ausnog@futurecrime.agency>>; mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>> mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>>
*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] FTTC

FTTC is VDSL to the DPU but the customer gets an Ethernet
hand-off.

Kindest Regards,

Nathan Brookfield (VK2NAB)

Chief Executive Officer

Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd

*Local:* (02) 4749 4949 *|* *Fax:* (02) 4749 4950 *|*
*Direct:* (02) 4749 4951

*Web*: http://www.simtronic.com.au
 *|* *E-mail*:
nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au



CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE

The information contained in this email and any attached files
is strictly private and confidential. The intended recipient
of this email may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute
the information contained in this email and any attached files
with Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd’s permission. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from
using, reproducing, adapting, disclosing or distributing the
information contained in this email and any attached files or
taking any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
email in error, please email the sender by replying to this
message, promptly delete and destroy any copies of this email
and any attachments.

It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any
files attached for computer viruses and other defects and
recommend that you subject these to your virus checking
procedures prior to use. 

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Peter Fern]

On 9/4/19 2:22 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic 
fingerprints of material similar to anything identified in a eSafety 
Commissioner's notice.


By the by, without a mechanism for the eSafety Commissioner to match 
content (a common mechanism for electronic fingerprinting material 
across hosting providers), the eSafety Commissioner will find 
themselves playing whack a mole chasing content specific to each 
hosting provider.


What do you think that looks like, exactly? You've brought up this 
magical fingerprint technology multiple times, and been rebuffed 
multiple times, with no response. I think it's irresponsible to suggest 
that this is an easy solve.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Peter Fern]

On 8/4/19 11:55 am, Paul Wilkins wrote:
There should be little cost to service providers in implementing take 
down notices. Video can now easily be fingerprinted, and repeat 
postings autoflagged for moderator take down.


This is wildly inaccurate, as evidenced by YouTube's Content ID (at an 
estimated cost of ~$60 million USD to develop, yet still horribly 
flawed), and the recent submissions as part of the backlash against the 
Article 13 copyright directive introduced in the EU.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Peter Fern]

On 28/3/19 12:33 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
The silence on the Assistance and Access Act since it passed in 
December has been deafening. It was firmly understood, on 
representations by the Liberal Government, that the bill passed was 
passed as an expedient, yet now we have the third report from PJCIS 
due 3rd April, and yet another round of submissions from corporations 
large and small, industry luminaries and human rights and legal 
experts, all saying that basically we're where we were back in 
September 2018, when Dutton rather disingenuously reported to the 
House that:


"The government has consulted extensively with industry and the public 
on these measures and has made amendments to reflect the feedback in 
the legislation now before the parliament."


Yet no matter how many submissions are made to how many parliamentary 
committees, we now seem stuck with a deeply flawed Act, the Liberals 
are walking backwards on the Labor amendements, while the country's 
police forces now operate with sweeping interception powers well 
beyond what's necessary and proportional.



Because, of course we are - anyone who thought we'd be anywhere else 
today was living in a fantasy land.  And you can thank Labor for this, 
on account of being completely spineless weasels, almost as much as the 
Libs for ramrodding this disgusting mess through in the first place.  
Tech policy in this country is an absolute joke.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Are domain name server pointers reliant on registrar name server?

[Peter Fern]

On 29/10/18 3:54 pm, Bradley Silverman wrote:
@Peter - Hey mate, I never said our nameservers would server records, 
I said the server itself would not go looking as it would assume that 
as it hosts the website, and has DNS records, that it itself is 
authoritative. This is basically how all Control Panel like systems 
function (cPanel, Plesk etc).
Our nameservers are not responding incorrectly, or at all in this 
circumstance, it's just the server not making a DNS query as it 
assumes it has that information already haha!



Can't you just point the resolvers on the box to another recursor, 
rather than at the cPanel DNS server, to fix this? Clearly I don't have 
much experience with these terrible control panel things, but this 
sounds like a pretty broken mode of operation, or perhaps there's a 
missing integration point that should be leveraged to avoid this being a 
customer problem.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Are domain name server pointers reliant on registrar name server?

[Peter Fern]

, auDA and Afilias name
servers but NOT my registrar e.g. Synergy Wholesale, TPP
Wholesale, NetRegistry etc

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:59 AM Peter Fern
mailto:aus...@0xc0dedbad.com>> wrote:

On 28/10/18 11:58 pm, Chad Kelly wrote:
> On 10/28/2018 11:10 PM,
ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net
<mailto:ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net> wrote:
>
>> The original post was asking if the registrar is
relied upon here
>> (and the answer is no).
> But the nameservers themselves still need to be
listed at the
> registrar level so that they can be found on the
public internet.
> Otherwise you run into issues with dns lookups and
them not being able
> to resolve your dns correctly.
> They call this having registry hosts.
>

registrar != registry
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog



___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Are domain name server pointers reliant on registrar name server?

[Peter Fern]

On 28/10/18 11:58 pm, Chad Kelly wrote:

On 10/28/2018 11:10 PM, ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net wrote:

The original post was asking if the registrar is relied upon here 
(and the answer is no).
But the nameservers themselves still need to be listed at the 
registrar level so that they can be found on the public internet. 
Otherwise you run into issues with dns lookups and them not being able 
to resolve your dns correctly.

They call this having registry hosts.



registrar != registry
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

[Peter Fern]

On 6/9/18 6:20 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Not for profits still rely on a revenue stream. Time will tell.

This sort of hand-waving is how we end up in trouble - now would be the
time for some critical thinking about whether this bill even has a
chance of achieving the stated goals, and these examples suggest not.
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog