Re: Someone's not getting their email.....
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:43:15 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got the following stuff in response to a mail I sent to the IETF list. Since I have no idea whether this is an email harvester or a legitimate antispam tool (the form gave no indication, and no links to more information about its owner), I don't have enough information to decide reliably to respond to the message. i have run internet mailing lists since about 1985. when the first C/R systems showed up a few years ago, i arrived at simple conclusion very quickly. anybody who installs a C/R system and doesn't whitelist the mailing lists they subscribe to doesn't deserve to receive those mailing lists. i remove from my lists anyone who does this. nobody has complained yet. i'd strongly urge that the IETF adapt a similar policy. it's much less stressful for all concerned. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:27:53 -0500 Mike S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:42 AM 1/10/2004, Bill Sommerfeld wrote... If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more specific. What law, and in what country? Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made. and already been debunked. If one considers spraying bullets and so shooting and killing innocent bystanders while defending against an assailant as legal, then yes, it's been debunked. might i suggest citing some case law demonstrating the relevance of the statute you cited?[1] the rhetoric of your response is largely content free. w/o supporting case law, your legal opinion is of rather limited value. richard [1] i, for one, will be extremely impressed if you actually dredge some up. i don't think that statute has any relevance to dns based BLs, whether a MAPS product or otherwise. the question is one for the courts to decide, and i'm not at all aware of anyone actually attempting to use that statute in the manner you suggest. -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:48:39 -0500 Mike S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:08 PM 1/10/2004, Richard Welty wrote... might i suggest citing some case law demonstrating the relevance of the statute you cited? Non sequitor. By your implied logic, no new laws could be effectively created or enforced, since all would lack precedent. The relevant code is relatively new, so only limited, if any, case law can be expected to be extant in any case. so, you have a statute dated 1996 which you claim prohibits certain activities. you are apparently unable to cite any case law (i don't know if you actually have tried to find any or not, you simply responded by dismissing the suggestion.) i suspect you're not a lawyer. i also seriously doubt you've actually asked a lawyer specializing in this type of law for an informed opinion. i think that i don't care to take legal advice from you. have a nice day, richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: Returned mail: Cannot send message within 5 days (fwd)
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:15 -0500 (EST) Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone explain the following: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes. you should practice your typing. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: E-mail Caught by Spam Filter Re: [Fwd: Emerging Network Usage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about a spam filter having issues; the actual text from the spam filter bounce is: This is due to your e-mail servers IP being listed on one or more of the internet based Spam filter lists below. Please notify your IT Dept or your ISP and make sure they are aware of the issue. Multihop.dsbl.org Relays.ordb.org Relays.osirsoft.com Lists.dsbl.org it is my understanding that the osirusoft zones are badly hosed, or at least, were badly hosed some time over the past several days. in other words, it's probably poor handling of a failure condition rather than a true blacklist entry. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[2]: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
On 19 Jun 2003 06:59:56 -0700 Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a ? I'm not convinced that this is happening... if it is, why isn't there a market reaction. such maybe building. i have a client who for budgetary reasons are using an inexpensive Ameritech DSL line. because of their location, they have extremely limited broadband options. Ameritech only gives them a /29, with no option for additional IPs available. a third party vendor also requires IPSec for an application they need, and the third party only supports pre-shared keys. the needed three legged firewall, bridging two interfaces and using NAT on the third one, is rather more complicated than i wanted to deploy for a budget-constrained customer. neither i nor my client feel that there was a much of a win here, but there weren't any other options, either. i'll wager that increasing use of IPSec will start to create pressure. just a hunch. but my customer can't create meaningful pressure when the phone company is involved; it takes thousands of small customers screaming to get an RBOC to take notice, maybe more. it could be a few years... Given that there are workarounds for these, I find this explanation pretty unlikely. More likely is that people's revealed preference is that they don't actually want this stuff. all too often, for small customers, the workarounds are expensive or unknown to them. in the particular case i cited above, my customer would have spent a lot less money on my time if they could have simply gotten a /27 from Ameritech and dispensed with port NAT entirely, and they and i both know that this was the preferred option. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[2]: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
On 19 Jun 2003 07:39:56 -0700 Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then why don't they switch providers. Revealed preference suggests that they *are* getting what they want, no matter how much complaining. in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see my earlier posting about my client for whom Ameritech DSL was the only affordable choice, and we just barely made it work for their application. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[4]: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:00:47 -0400 Neil Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see my earlier posting about my client for whom Ameritech DSL was the only affordable choice, and we just barely made it work for their application. This seems like a specious argument. The client had chosen, as you indicate, to scrimp on their broadband provider to save money. You also indicate that other providers were available. The nature of picking any product is cost vs. benefit. In this case, the customer chose to favor cost and, thus, received less benefit. well, they'd dumped Covad for abysmal service. anyone else was so pricy that the project would not go forward at all; the monthly recurring cost was simply a budget buster. it's not a matter of scrimping so much as a matter of whether the project is even feasible under the budgetary constraints. port NAT enables some folks to run lots of computers behind small subnets, sure, but it also has the side effect of disabling or nearly disabling lots of other technologies. the folks who have the hardest problems are the ones with the least cash. telling someone with a small budget that they can solve their problem with an application of more money (to get a better provider) isn't advice that goes down so well. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[4]: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:26:17 -0700 Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Welty wrote: the needed three legged firewall, bridging two interfaces and using NAT on the third one, is rather more complicated than i wanted to deploy for a budget-constrained customer. neither i nor my client feel that there was a much of a win here, but there weren't any other options, either. This is a clever setup; am I guessing correctly in saying that fortunately the IPSEC part needed to terminate on only one or two servers and not on each host? yes, it only needed to terminate on the server in the DMZ (the internet facing interface and the DMZ interface are the two that were bridged, obviously.) richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[2]: Certificate / CPS issues
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 22:42:29 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IANAL, but it looks to me like the Habeas crew is on fairly strong legal footing. i might add that the CEO of Habeas, Anne Mitchell, is an actual lawyer. i am not familiar with Anthony's credentials in the field of law. casually throwing legal terms about does not impress. this email happens to have Habeas headers, so i presume that he will not see it if he is throwing such mail out the way he says he will. cheers, richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[2]: spam
On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:32:35 + John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a 'radical anti-spammer'? it's a rhetorical device used when one wants to paint with an overly broad brush. cheers, richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re[2]: the main differences between SSL and TLS?
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:29:00 -0500 Vivek Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to the best of my knowledge just the version numbers Anyone knows the main differences between SSL and TLS? um, no. from Rescorla, _SSL and TLS: Designing and Building Secure Systems_, page 50: a number of minor changes were made to the document, ..., with the effect that key expansion and the message authentication computations are totally incompatible with SSLv3, destroying most backward compatibility. the book is quite good. i suggest that it is a better investment than pestering the IETF mailing list with SSL and TLS questions. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: Attachment Stripped in Transaction
On 7/25/2001, 11:43:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:37:33 BST, Lloyd Wood said: If it can't be described in text, it probably can't be implemented in text as a computer program either. The point I was trying to make was that if we simply filter *ALL* messages that aren't text/plain, we're sending a message that we've given up on multipart/signed messages as well. On the contrary, i think it's quite acceptable for any mailing list to have a policy of text only submission. MIME has its uses, but it doesn't need to go everywhere email goes; that's just insane. I would further note that MIME is horribly incompatible with RFC 1153 (Digest Message Format) which may be listed as an experiemental RFC but the format is in very common use. Surely after almost a decade of MIME experience, we can do better than just saying Throw out all stuff that isn't text/plain. i'm about this close to setting up ietf-demimed, a demimed list that would be subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], on my server, so folks can just try it out. Richard
