RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
yes, me too Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73004&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
Yes, I am receiving a few mails from "Nobody" :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NOBODY emails [7:72997] Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that are empty?? Larry Puckette Network Analyst Temple Inland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-434-1838 Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. -Original Message- From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. Just my $0.02 Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty access. > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > allows ssh > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > applying it to the > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > certain IPs it > works fine... > > ip access-list extended local_shell > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > vty 0 4 > access-class local_shell in > transport input ssh > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > Thanx, > mkj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73002&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
I am one, received 13 of them last night. Paul: I am sure you would be working on this. Vikram -Original Message- From: Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NOBODY emails [7:72997] Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that are empty?? Larry Puckette Network Analyst Temple Inland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-434-1838 Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. -Original Message- From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. Just my $0.02 Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > access. > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > allows ssh > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > applying it to the > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > certain IPs it > works fine... > > ip access-list extended local_shell > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > vty 0 4 > access-class local_shell in > transport input ssh > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > Thanx, > mkj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73001&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
YES! At 03:56 AM 7/25/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that >are empty?? > >Larry Puckette >Network Analyst >Temple Inland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >512-434-1838 >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > -Original Message- >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM >To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > >Just my $0.02 > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: >> >> I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty >> access. >> Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only >> allows ssh >> access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and >> applying it to the >> VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing >> certain IPs it >> works fine... >> >> ip access-list extended local_shell >> permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 >> >> vty 0 4 >> access-class local_shell in >> transport input ssh >> >> Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? >> >> Thanx, >> mkj + International Network Services Darren S. Crawford - CCNP, CCDP, CISSP Sr. Network Systems Consultant Northwest Operation - Sacramento Office Voicemail: (916) 859-5200 x310 Pager: (800) 467-1467 Text Page: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.ins.com + Every Job is a Self-Portrait of the person Who Did It...Autograph Your Work With EXCELLENCE! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73003&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
yup -Original Message- From: Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 25 July 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NOBODY emails [7:72997] Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that are empty?? Larry Puckette Network Analyst Temple Inland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-434-1838 Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. -Original Message- From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. Just my $0.02 Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty access. > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > allows ssh > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > applying it to the > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > certain IPs it > works fine... > > ip access-list extended local_shell > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > vty 0 4 > access-class local_shell in > transport input ssh > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > Thanx, > mkj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73006&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
I got .. about 10 emails At 03:56 25/07/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that >are empty?? > >Larry Puckette >Network Analyst >Temple Inland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >512-434-1838 >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > -Original Message- >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > >Just my $0.02 > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > > access. > > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > > allows ssh > > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > > applying it to the > > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > > certain IPs it > > works fine... > > > > ip access-list extended local_shell > > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > > > vty 0 4 > > access-class local_shell in > > transport input ssh > > > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > > > Thanx, > > mkj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73007&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
YES !!\!\!!! Quoting Darren Crawford : > YES! > > At 03:56 AM 7/25/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: > >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that > >are empty?? > > > >Larry Puckette > >Network Analyst > >Temple Inland > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >512-434-1838 > >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > > > -Original Message- > >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM > >To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > > > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying > >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > > > >Just my $0.02 > > > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > >> > >> I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > >> access. > >> Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > >> allows ssh > >> access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > >> applying it to the > >> VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > >> certain IPs it > >> works fine... > >> > >> ip access-list extended local_shell > >> permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > >> > >> vty 0 4 > >> access-class local_shell in > >> transport input ssh > >> > >> Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > >> > >> Thanx, > >> mkj > + > International Network Services > Darren S. Crawford - CCNP, CCDP, CISSP > Sr. Network Systems Consultant > Northwest Operation - Sacramento Office > Voicemail: (916) 859-5200 x310 > Pager: (800) 467-1467 > Text Page: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Email: mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: www.ins.com > + > > Every Job is a Self-Portrait of the person Who Did > It...Autograph Your Work With EXCELLENCE! Iwan Hoogendoorn Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73012&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
I4m just beeing tired of that person. antero -Original Message- From: Taufik Kurniawan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Julho de 2003 07:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997] I got .. about 10 emails At 03:56 25/07/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that >are empty?? > >Larry Puckette >Network Analyst >Temple Inland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >512-434-1838 >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > -Original Message- >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > >Just my $0.02 > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > > access. > > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > > allows ssh > > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > > applying it to the > > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > > certain IPs it > > works fine... > > > > ip access-list extended local_shell > > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > > > vty 0 4 > > access-class local_shell in > > transport input ssh > > > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > > > Thanx, > > mkj *** Este email assim como os ficheiros que possa ter em anexo sao confidenciais e para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou organizacao para o qual foi enviado. Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano por favor notifique a Compta atraves do endereco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema MAILsweeper nao tendo sido encontrados virus. http://www.mimesweeper.com MAILsweeper - Modulo da suite MIMEsweeper, solucao de filtragem de conteudos comercializada pela Compta SA. A Compta SA detem o mais alto nivel de especializacao MIMEsweeper, tendo sido reconhecida pela Clearswift como Premier Partner. *** This message is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Compta by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73014&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
No, I won't think that these mails are sent by some person. I have a rule on my outlook application which sends all mails addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a specific folder, but this one is directly coming to my Inbox, so I feel that it will be a Server or mailing application (Majordomo I believe) bug, which is sending personally addressed blank mails to some or all the list members. Just my point though. Vikram -Original Message- From: Antero Vasconcelos To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/25/03 3:51 PM Subject: RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997] I4m just beeing tired of that person. antero -Original Message- From: Taufik Kurniawan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Julho de 2003 07:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997] I got .. about 10 emails At 03:56 25/07/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that >are empty?? > >Larry Puckette >Network Analyst >Temple Inland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >512-434-1838 >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > -Original Message- >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > >Just my $0.02 > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > > access. > > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > > allows ssh > > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > > applying it to the > > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > > certain IPs it > > works fine... > > > > ip access-list extended local_shell > > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > > > vty 0 4 > > access-class local_shell in > > transport input ssh > > > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > > > Thanx, > > mkj *** Este email assim como os ficheiros que possa ter em anexo sao confidenciais e para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou organizacao para o qual foi enviado. Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano por favor notifique a Compta atraves do endereco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema MAILsweeper nao tendo sido encontrados virus. http://www.mimesweeper.com MAILsweeper - Modulo da suite MIMEsweeper, solucao de filtragem de conteudos comercializada pela Compta SA. A Compta SA detem o mais alto nivel de especializacao MIMEsweeper, tendo sido reconhecida pela Clearswift como Premier Partner. *** This message is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Compta by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73019&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
Hey!!! If nobody sends me an email did I really get an email at all? -Original Message- From: Vikram JeetSingh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997] No, I won't think that these mails are sent by some person. I have a rule on my outlook application which sends all mails addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a specific folder, but this one is directly coming to my Inbox, so I feel that it will be a Server or mailing application (Majordomo I believe) bug, which is sending personally addressed blank mails to some or all the list members. Just my point though. Vikram -Original Message- From: Antero Vasconcelos To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/25/03 3:51 PM Subject: RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997] I4m just beeing tired of that person. antero -Original Message- From: Taufik Kurniawan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Julho de 2003 07:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997] I got .. about 10 emails At 03:56 25/07/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that >are empty?? > >Larry Puckette >Network Analyst >Temple Inland >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >512-434-1838 >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. > > -Original Message- >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying >transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > >Just my $0.02 > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > > access. > > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > > allows ssh > > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > > applying it to the > > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > > certain IPs it > > works fine... > > > > ip access-list extended local_shell > > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > > > vty 0 4 > > access-class local_shell in > > transport input ssh > > > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > > > Thanx, > > mkj *** Este email assim como os ficheiros que possa ter em anexo sao confidenciais e para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou organizacao para o qual foi enviado. Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano por favor notifique a Compta atraves do endereco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema MAILsweeper nao tendo sido encontrados virus. http://www.mimesweeper.com MAILsweeper - Modulo da suite MIMEsweeper, solucao de filtragem de conteudos comercializada pela Compta SA. A Compta SA detem o mais alto nivel de especializacao MIMEsweeper, tendo sido reconhecida pela Clearswift como Premier Partner. *** This message is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Compta by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73095&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
ios bug has hit the mailing lists too... - Original Message - From: "Antero Vasconcelos" Date: Friday, July 25, 2003 4:21 pm Subject: RE: NOBODY emails [7:72997] > I4m just beeing tired of that person. > > antero > > -Original Message- > From: Taufik Kurniawan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Julho de 2003 07:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NOBODY emails [7:72997] > > > I got .. about 10 emails > > > At 03:56 25/07/2003 +, Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote: > >Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] that > >are empty?? > > > >Larry Puckette > >Network Analyst > >Temple Inland > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >512-434-1838 > >Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for > integrity.> > > -Original Message- > >From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject:RE: Vty access class [7:72990] > > > >I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already > specifying>transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. > > > >Just my $0.02 > > > >Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > > > > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty > > > access. > > > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > > > allows ssh > > > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > > > applying it to the > > > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > > > certain IPs it > > > works fine... > > > > > > ip access-list extended local_shell > > > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > > > > > vty 0 4 > > > access-class local_shell in > > > transport input ssh > > > > > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > > > > > Thanx, > > > mkj > *** > Este email assim como os ficheiros que possa ter em anexo sao > confidenciaise para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou organizacao para o > qual foi enviado. Se > recebeu esta mensagem por engano por favor notifique a Compta > atraves do > endereco [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema MAILsweeper nao tendo sido > encontrados virus. http://www.mimesweeper.com > > MAILsweeper - Modulo da suite MIMEsweeper, solucao de filtragem de > conteudoscomercializada pela Compta SA. > > A Compta SA detem o mais alto nivel de especializacao MIMEsweeper, > tendosido reconhecida pela Clearswift como Premier Partner. > *** > This message is confidential and may contain privileged > information intended > solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed > exceptfor the purpose for which it has been sent. > > If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, > distribute or take > any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in > error,please notify Compta by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] > quoting the sender and > delete the message and any attached documents. > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeperfor Content Security threats, including computer viruses > *** > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (on sprinter) The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant to be read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire confidentiality clause. - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73021&t=72997 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
