RE: RFC 3164 i.e. BSD Syslog Protocol
In theory there's no reason multicast SYSLOG shouldn't work. The packet format doesn't need to change and you just need to bind to a multicast socket. I haven't any idea how implementations will currently behave. But you're addressing two separate problems- distribution and reliability. Reliability is addressed with SYSLOG/BEEP, which I believe is a Proposed Standard (RFC 3195). Part of the reliability standard is TCP based. Hence, multicast is not Supported. On the UDP side, it can be done. Thanks, Atul ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFC 3164 i.e. BSD Syslog Protocol
RFC 3164 i.e. the BSD Syslog protocol allows a client to send multiple datagrams to different Hosts. In a clustered environment, datagrams can be lost. Has anyone considered using a IP multicast socket for sending messages to multiple hosts ? Is there a draft proposal In this regard. Also, as I understand, there is no retransmisson support like in SNMP. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Atul - P.S: All opinions are my personal opinion(s) responsibility and do not represent the view of my employer ( Intel Corporation ). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your ...
Are there just a couple of DNS server(s) per ISP? Do they run VPN's to sync up with the central DNS servers so that DNS spoofing is limited DNS synchronization encrypted? Should be an easy solution for DNS spoofing except for public IP addresses which home users get. Again, they would be registered, so spoofing them would be difficult? -- Atul P.S: The opinions are my opinion and my responsibility. -Original Message- From: Edward Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your ... At 13:12 -0400 9/16/03, Keith Moore wrote: I strongly disagree. The DNS is the ultimate authority on whether a domain exists, since the way you create a domain is by making an entry in the DNS.Making existence of a domain depend on a separate registry makes no sense and is inconsistent with longstanding practice. DNS is the ultimate authority on whether there is an DNS answer to a DNS query, but that's about it. What a DNS server answers is based on what is in the registry it represents. To quote what I wrote on the provreg list in http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00164.html: DNS names [...] are limited to 255 octets, which is about 2K bits, and 2^2k possibilities minus special cases. Boom - all names exist. The point is, before saying that DNS makes any statement about existence you need to define exists for what purpose. In the message above, it was exists so that I can't register it. In the wcard clarify draft in DNSEXT, it's exists for the purposes of ruling out synthesis of the answer. that's not the same thing at all. DNS is not the authority for whether a device is connected to the net. DNS is the authority on whether a DNS name exists. In engineering the DNS, com. has been and still is a peculiar case and there has been the temptation to tailor the DNS protocol to accommodate it. The community has said time and again not to do so - not to treat that zone (and the others growing like it) as special cases. I think turnabout is fair play - that we not restrict com. and the others from using what's in DNS protocol. I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what has been added to com. and net. Let's just be fair, accurate, and on-topic (like, protocols) in the discussion. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer Sponge Bob Square Pants? I'm still trying to figure out the Macarena.
RE: spam
Now to add the mess of spam which we all are doing... NO SPAM. PLEASE... It has been a unsolvable problem so far... Just like Lots of social problems we have e.g. poverty... Regulation/Discipline rather than technology can solve this one as when the Punishment for spamming is bigger than the profit, we solve the Problem. On technology front, all we can do is make spamming difficult or filter the spam content better e.g check for spam on mail servers on transmit, forwarding, redirection, receive. Client level filters would not work. These all fall in the area of regulating general purpose Internet content regulation. Spam is just misuse of this content. There are so many other Internet scams we have. In short, this should belong in some general purpose Internet Security Forum discussions. -- Atul P.S: These are my personal opinions. -Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:23 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: spam Paul writes: ... the problem isn't deterring spammers or even preventing abuse, but rather designing a new interpersonal batch communications system (ibcs?) which allows a receiving party to accept or reject inbound traffic with some kind of confidence in the identity of the sender, the intent of the relay or proxy, and the value (to the sender) of the reception. Designing one is easy. Getting a billion people around the world to all implement the system, once designed, is very, very hard. Additionally, nobody would be willing to accept a single design. Someone would claim patent infringement. Different companies would want to turn it into a money-making adventure, which would instantly make it unworkable for most of the world. Other companies would change the design slightly and then try to force their own versions as the true standard, in order to make commercial profits. It would take forever to do. Whatever the technical solution might be, I think it would have to be something that requires only action at the receiving end, not the sending end. If you require action at both ends, you lock out 95% of the world's Internet users at the push of a button. It's like coming up with a solution that requires everyone to upgrade to a new version of Windows with a certain service pack. It's not going to happen. As always, be conservative in what you expect, and liberal in what you accept. my own ideas have to do with trustbrokers ... Trusted third parties are tempting, but that notion opens a tremendous can of worms. Personally, there isn't anyone I'd trust as a certification authority even for strangers. A PGP model is more tempting, but it would require more sophistication on the part of users than can reasonably be expected for 99% of the world's Internet citizens. Indeed, any trustbroker plan has this same problem. Even if the certification is limited to mailers, you still have the above problem, only with slightly reduced magnitude. we (the e-mail producing/consuming community) have the technology ... We can rebuild it. We can make it better. Nah. The Internet acquires more inertia with each passing day. And the more inertia it develops, the harder it is to implement any active technical change (i.e., any change that requires actual modification of multiple systems around the world). Kind of like moving everyone to IPv6. what we lack, dear ietf, is simply: leadership. No, we lack a genius who can come up with something that will work without requiring a change on one billion computers around the world. Preferably a genius who won't file a patent on it, too.
RE: about certificate?
Sure does but if you get three such events every month for a prolonged time, you are in trouble!! Keep making phone calls to get your money back which can take a month or more to come back. Also, you have to remember to double check if the credit was posted back to your account. It's lot of inconvenience to the consumer for no fault. Should businesses be liable for the inconvenience fee for such billing/accounting errors. As per me, something small like $3 would do. Same happens with phone bills. Whenever you switch a carrier, the first bill is incorrect. How do these bugs get fixed if corporations do not have any business benefit for it. They are bugs/errors and are painful for the consumers. These loopholes can be abused. -- Atul P.S: This is my personal opinion. -Original Message- From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: about certificate? Yo Omar! You are worrying about the wrong things. Hackers do not bother to steal CC#s off the net one at a time. They break in to Amazon and take 30,000 at a time. At least in the US your liability for stolen CC info is US$50. So check your statements carefully and let the folks with the real risk worry about it. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i configured my browser to detect such pbs because i do shop on the net and i need to evaluate the credibility of any claimed site identity.
RE: How many standards or protocols...
The question is how you determine what *job* someone knows how to do. It's all about perception. Again rating someone's performance is also a perception. Lots of people thrive in the grey areas. That is a problem though!! IMHO, approach to the job makes a big difference. People can learn and can slack off. Persistence does help. So, does motivation. -Original Message- From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: How many standards or protocols... IMHO, people are people. Whether they are in sales or engineering or management or in Marketing or communication, it does not matter!! When you ask someone to do a job, it does matter what job they know how to do. /===\ |John Stracke|Principal Engineer| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |===| |Sleep is for wimps--healthy, well-adjusted wimps, but wimps| |nonetheless. | \===/
