Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
- Original Message - From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jonathan Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:04 PM Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites > > > You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > > accounts already. :P > > i don't, mainly because i have no idea why i would want one. same > for all these multiply.com invites. b-b-but they are "invite [EMAIL PROTECTED]@$", that means it's "exclusive!#@@#", you could finally Belong! paul
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > accounts already. :P i don't, mainly because i have no idea why i would want one. same for all these multiply.com invites. randy
Re: bandwidth test
>quote who="Bubba Parker"> > > Recently my DS3 has been turned up to 8 megabits. How can I test to see if > I can actually achieve that throughput? > Online bandwidth test sites are only good for up to 5mb at the most, and > my upstream doesn't have a method to test that. We've been LART'ing some of our colo clients lately for running bittorrent trackers[1]. They seem to have no problem filling a 10mbps port rather quickly. -davidu 1: we do not run a commercial colo. our AUP does not allow this behavior. no need to create a separate discussion about this. eof. :) David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
Re: bandwidth test
Send a (big) file to somewhere with enough bandwidth to max out your upload. Perhaps sending a big attachment to Yahoo or Gmail while keeping an eye on the traffic logs might work. > > Recently my DS3 has been turned up to 8 megabits. How can I test to see if > I can actually achieve that throughput? > Online bandwidth test sites are only good for up to 5mb at the most, and > my upstream doesn't have a method to test that. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. > > > -- > Bubba Parker > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CityNet LLC > http://www.citynetinfo.com/ > -- - ODS.org Team Elvedin Trnjanin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ods.org
bandwidth test
Recently my DS3 has been turned up to 8 megabits. How can I test to see if I can actually achieve that throughput? Online bandwidth test sites are only good for up to 5mb at the most, and my upstream doesn't have a method to test that. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Bubba Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] CityNet LLC http://www.citynetinfo.com/
Re: Has postini been taken over?
This won't work for resold ports, but we used to do all of our [dialup] filtering on the NAS. We could still do so with our TC1000's, but it's much simpler to do it with radius if you have multiple ISP's using the same box. Bob Martin Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 'fantasy mail' is what we call this :( It's a pain and you have to port25 filter in AND out :( that must have been a nightmare especially with a large provider of dialup pops for a whole lot of ISPs .. not as much as the filtering as keeping track of the holes you punched in the filters so that customers of an isp leasing pops from you can relay out through their own isp's servers. radius profile based filters, sorry I should have been more clear about that. is there a doc for this somewhere online? i know at least some isps who would appreciate being spoonfed a howto for this, right down to copy and paste cisco acls ... it's mostly radius stuff, though I'm sure someone could put simple examples together.
Re: Precise per GB traffic calculations.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Drew Weaver wrote: > Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of > tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or Gigabyte level and > not at the rate of transfer level? I've used a tool called "IOG", which works to some extent, but it looks like it has problems with 64bit counters. > Some people are asking me if we can bill them in this manner, and I'm > questioning whether the stats that the switch are giving us are that > accurate. Imagine this scenario: Customer Buys 600GB of "transfer" Customers transfers 600GB @ 100Mbps for however many hours. If you're being billed with 95th percentile, and your customer is being billed on transfer, guess who gets the short end of the stick...
Re: Precise per GB traffic calculations.
On Aug 20, 2004, at 5:06 PM, Drew Weaver wrote: Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or Gigabyte level and not at the rate of transfer level? Some people are asking me if we can bill them in this manner, and I'm questioning whether the stats that the switch are giving us are that accurate. I don't know of any equipment that does NOT measure per-byte transferred. The Mbps is done by taking the bytes transferred (multiply by 8) and divide by the time involved, usually 5 minute periods. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Precise per GB traffic calculations.
DW> Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of DW> tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or DW> Gigabyte level and not at the rate of transfer level? Rate of transfer is determined using byte counters. [Eddy is saying "yes" in the above line]. I'm not sure that would be clear to me if I didn't already know the answer to the question. Forgive the Friday afternoon curve. DJ
Re: BANANOG [Re: Specialty Technical Publishers]
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:04:57 +0100, Per Gregers Bilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 20, 1:07pm, Joshua Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the > > litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful > > world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? > > The point is that NANOG is supposed to focus on network operational issues > (and by implication also issues of architecture and engineering); issues > of a tangential or personal interest water down the contents, whether or > not they are important for the Internet and/or your business. Including > cashflow, litigation, world peace, and falling asteroids. Sure understood there, however...NANOG is a discussion list which I believe needs to focus on more than just the strict network operational issues. (a user on AS12345 is announcing my IP's can someone purdy please go smack him and make him stop), such as we do at the NANOG confrences, discuss everything in and around the network operations field, which deals with cashflow, litigation, world peace if your an ISP in say iraq or afghanistan right now, and falling asteroids headed to your satellites or your datacenters or god forbid your CEO's Porsche. > > The reason for trying to maintain focus is simple: few people deeply > involved in core Internet issues have the time to sift through heaps of > "interesting" discussion that has no relevance for their work. In the > end, everybody who might make a difference will have written NANOG off > and simply not take part. This has to a large extent already happened, > but it would be good not to make the situation worse. Then I guess the solution is simple...don't sift through it. Everything eventually evolves from the original reason it was created and we can't just sit around and not conform to that. > There used to be a mailing list called com-priv, the original purpose > being discussion about commercialisation and privatisation of the > Internet. Maybe NANOG/Merit as a group/organisation should revive > it, and discuss non-technical matters on that? Business Associated > NANOG (BANANOG) discussion would be much happier on a separate list. > Could even sit on a Merit server I guess, it would simply shift traffic > from one list to another. I suppose, but then we get the complaints of "Grrr *grumble* I have to sign up for another mailing list just to discuss issues which can easily be discussed in one location?" but if you can get Merit to create a BANANOG I guess we can see how it goes. > In the meantime, a tried and tested relevance test for NANOG is very > simple: How do I configure my router for that? Step 1: Kick the router out of the rack. Step 2: Bring in big lumberjacks to beat the router until it conforms, if it conforms skip to step 5, if not go on to step 3. Step 3: Hire someone who didn't have to ask that question. Step 4: Get a roll of duct tape and gently slide the router back into place. Step 5: Plug router in and enjoy! > Best, > > -- Per > > -- Joshua Brady
Re: Precise per GB traffic calculations.
DW> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:06:42 -0400 DW> From: Drew Weaver DW> Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of DW> tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or DW> Gigabyte level and not at the rate of transfer level? Rate of transfer is determined using byte counters. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Precise per GB traffic calculations.
Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or Gigabyte level and not at the rate of transfer level? Some people are asking me if we can bill them in this manner, and I'm questioning whether the stats that the switch are giving us are that accurate. Hit me off-list. Thanks, -Drew
nanog@merit.edu
Can someone from the savvis / c&w IP routing contact me offlist quickly? Thanks, /micah
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 21 Aug, 2004 Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 143916 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 85856 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 69426 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17828 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 15446 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:7268 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2382 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 76 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.8 Max AS path length visible: 21 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 6 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 16 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1330637096 Equivalent to 79 /8s, 79 /16s and 233 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 35.9 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 58.0 Percentage of available address space allocated: 61.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65206 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:27808 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 14051 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 26026 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:14151 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2105 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:619 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:332 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.9 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 157720064 Equivalent to 9 /8s, 102 /16s and 158 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 72.0 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 23552-24575 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 82039 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:50063 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:63556 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 22372 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9420 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:3400 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 924 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 230151968 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 183 /16s and 215 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 68.6 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647,29695-30719, 31744-33791 ARIN Address Blocks24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/7, 72/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 26621 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation:18818 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks:23369 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 15593 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5752 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:3112 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1006 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.4 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 169553728 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 27 /16s and 47 /24s Percentage
Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 20 10:07:59 2004 > Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites] > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:31 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by > > me. i > > forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the > > disclaimer > > to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality, > > opening an > > attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay. > > Maybe the UK is different than the US. But if I get something > addressed to me in the mail (dunno about it if it was addressed to > someone else and accidentally delivered), it is MINE. Period. If I > did not order it, too damned bad, I get to keep it, it's a gift. U.S. law is similar, for _unsolicited_ materials. 'Mis-delivered' materials, must be returned to the Postal Service, -unopened-, for proper delivery. (It is a _crime_ to open such mail). However, even if you do own the 'thing' that was mailed to you, you still must respect the IP rights of the copyright owner of any such material in that 'thing'. Ownership of the 'physical artifact' does not include copyright control. > Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my > understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least > the part about having to delete it. Yup. Totally worthless. It is the realm of 'contract law', which, among other things requires a 'meeting of the minds' before any contract can be formed. > There is some question about > whether I can post it publicly (as you saw earlier), and I don't have > the motivation to test it in court, but I certainly feel perfectly > comfortable reading the contents of the e-mail and any attachments, and > doing whatever I like with the information, baring limitations set by > any previous agreements (e.g. NDAs). Copyright is retained by the sender. Aside from copyright issues, you are free to do whatever you like with the message, any 'disclaimers' not withstanding. > Would anyone care to correct me on this? IANAL, and don't even play > one on TV. :-) Not much that needs correcting. > > as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by > > reading this > > you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly > > enforceable > > to some degree Kelvin or Rankine? The ones that say 'if you are not the person to whom this message was addressed' may have a chance of being upheld. How good that chance is is *very* dependant on circumstances. The ones that say 'if you are not the persom for whom this message was _intended_' have no chance of prevaling on _that_ basis.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Nico Schottelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > P.S.: If you are interested in the background of this story, read > http://nico.schotteli.us/papers/net/orkut-diary for more information. My $0.02 social commentary on orkut (and similar social networking sites) is at http://www.fedster.com/ *.orkut.com is in my rejecthosts.dbm. ---Rob
Re: Specialty Technical Publishers
As I have seen the past few days, Susan seems to think quite a bit is off topic...my personal perception of NANOG is it is a group of network operators which talk about many things including but not limited to those of the network operations stand point, I have even been told that discussing email was off-topic and when has email not been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? Josh On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:46:49 -0700, Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and > > "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en > > pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains > > like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you > > registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear > > indication that they are used without permission for commentary, > > you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the > > legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a > > legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand > > that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't > > their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the > > white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, > > and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get > > away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds > > that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, > > in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything > > said was factual. > > Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before > I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in > an order to show cause hearing. > > Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I > legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only > time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went > afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to > divert their customers for my own profit. > > I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to > sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the > People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA. > > Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are > registered trademarks. > > > Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, > > or did they go straight to litigation? > > Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of > the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or > see them in court. > > > Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a > > "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that > > entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of > > your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off > > injustice inflicted by the big guy. > > Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to > qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong > possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial > arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have > allowed me to countersue for legal fees. > > > Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the > > discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string > > me up. > > It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation > that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At > the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering > assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble. > > matto > -- Joshua Brady
Re: Specialty Technical Publishers
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and > "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en > pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains > like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you > registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear > indication that they are used without permission for commentary, > you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the > legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a > legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand > that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't > their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the > white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, > and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get > away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds > that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, > in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything > said was factual. Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in an order to show cause hearing. Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to divert their customers for my own profit. I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA. Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are registered trademarks. > Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, > or did they go straight to litigation? Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or see them in court. > Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a > "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that > entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of > your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off > injustice inflicted by the big guy. Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have allowed me to countersue for legal fees. > Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the > discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string > me up. It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble. matto
Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:31 EDT, Patrick W Gilmore said: > Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my > understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least > the part about having to delete it. I often send the miscreants a pointer to Peter Guttmann's work on securely erasing magnetic media, and ask if they're willing to pay for the downtime of tracking down which blocks on the multiple terabytes of RAID-5 on our main mail hub need to be wiped out (remember - the block could have been allocated and then freed, so it gets interesting). Oh.. and would they care to pay for new backup tapes, because we'll have to restore them to a scratch area, erase the offending files, then make new tapes and destroy the old ones and wipe the temp disks.. Oh.. and second-order costs for people idled while we do the work... ;) I mean, if they're so worried that their screw-up will earn them an Ollie North: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/reagan/chron.txt they should pay for the clean-up, right? :) (And yes - I am *fully* aware that we don't take a second of downtime if we lose a disk on a hot-swap RAID-5, as it auto-hot-swaps and rebuilds onto a spare and then asks for help.. recovering from one failing drive in a raidset is *not* symmetric with intentionally trying to nuke possibly-moving data off all the volumes concerned.. ;) pgp1Biogn7Nku.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Blocked port 25?
> I've found a similar problem... From www.traceroute.org i can trace to a > server from some countries and not others... and even some states and > not others... This is something that was seen when DCEF over so-called parallel paths was commonly used. It was a result of a hashing algorithm that chose certain source IP addresses to take one path and other IP addresses to take another. In that case, the effect showed up when one person at a site had a problem and another person did not. Obviously, DCEF alone will not cause problems because it just sends traffic down different paths and there was something else causing the two paths to behave differently. Nowadays some people are using MPLS to load balance traffic between two LSPs. But if the two routers at the ends of the alternate LSPs do not have the same view of the network then you can get this sort of effect. Presumably you have verified that traffic sourced in one provider's network behaves differently depending on what part of the network you source it from? If I were you, I would isolate the problem to one provider's network and then work with their NOC to do further troubleshooting. --Michael Dillon
Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by me. i forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the disclaimer to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality, opening an attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay. Maybe the UK is different than the US. But if I get something addressed to me in the mail (dunno about it if it was addressed to someone else and accidentally delivered), it is MINE. Period. If I did not order it, too damned bad, I get to keep it, it's a gift. Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least the part about having to delete it. There is some question about whether I can post it publicly (as you saw earlier), and I don't have the motivation to test it in court, but I certainly feel perfectly comfortable reading the contents of the e-mail and any attachments, and doing whatever I like with the information, baring limitations set by any previous agreements (e.g. NDAs). Would anyone care to correct me on this? IANAL, and don't even play one on TV. :-) as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by reading this you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly enforceable to some degree Unclear on why telling me I have to delete something you sent me is logical. Just the opposite, in fact. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Blocked port 25?
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:37:03 -0600, Byron L.Hicks wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > In the last couple of days, I have received complaints from > customers not able to receive email from certain sites. From > these sites, I can't connect to our mail server, on other sites, I > can. I've found a similar problem... From www.traceroute.org i can trace to a server from some countries and not others... and even some states and not others... For example, I could traceroute to a specific site in Atlanta from baltimore but not from Iowa, i could traceroute from one provider in Dublin but not another... i could traceroute from France but not from UK... The problem seems to be with the yipes network... not sure what's causing it though... it's been going on for a while.
Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > > Are you saying that those ridiculous boilerplate disclaimers similar to > > the following that annoyingly appear tagged to email (including that > > sent > > to public mailing lists) really mean something? > > [SNIP] > > I got complete agreement from every JD about the disclaimers at the > bottom - they cannot tell you after you have received the e-mail that > you cannot keep the e-mail. Someone sends you something, it is yours. > Period. (Of course, every single one then back-peddled and talked > about how nothing is certain if it goes to court and typical CYA Lawyer > BS.) > > So at least the part about "if you are not the intended recipient, I > get your first born 'cause you already read the e-mail before seeing > this disclosure" is complete and utter BS. i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by me. i forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the disclaimer to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality, opening an attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay. as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by reading this you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly enforceable to some degree Steve
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 20 21:42:33 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
13-08-04140492 96325
14-08-04140535 96477
15-08-04140512 96646
16-08-04140698 96579
17-08-04140464 96768
18-08-04140576 96702
19-08-04140622 96743
20-08-04140707 96764
AS Summary
17728 Number of ASes in routing system
7248 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1378 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS7018 : ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
85701376 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721 : DNIC DoD Network Information Center
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 20Aug04 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 140720967814393931.2% All ASes
AS18566 7029 69398.7% CVAD Covad Communications
AS6347 801 124 67784.5% SAVV SAVVIS Communications
Corporation
AS4134 779 171 60878.0% CHINANET-BACKBONE
No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS4323 780 220 56071.8% TWTC Time Warner Telecom
AS7018 1378 952 42630.9% ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
AS7843 507 119 38876.5% ADELPH-13 Adelphia Corp.
AS701 1259 911 34827.6% UU UUNET Technologies, Inc.
AS9583 524 180 34465.6% SATYAMNET-AS Satyam Infoway
Ltd.,
AS22773 401 78 32380.5% CXAB Cox Communications Inc.
Atlanta
AS6467 351 29 32291.7% ACSI e.spire Communications,
Inc.
AS9929 351 33 31890.6% CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp.
AS22909 358 43 31588.0% CMCS Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc.
AS27364 350 36 31489.7% ARMC Armstrong Cable Services
AS1239 936 626 31033.1% SPRN Sprint
AS11172 355 52 30385.4% Alestra
AS17676 344 42 30287.8% JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan
Network Information Center
AS6197 715 421 29441.1% BNS-14 BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS4355 380 99 28173.9% ERSD EARTHLINK, INC
AS6478 336 61 27581.8% ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
AS4766 539 266 27350.6% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS9443 359 110 24969.4% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
Telecommunications
AS14654 253 10 24396.0% WAYPOR-3 Wayport
AS6198 453 217 23652.1% BNS-14 BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS17633 242 13 22994.6% CHINATELECOM-SD-AS-AP ASN for
Shandong Provincial Net of CT
AS25844 244 15 22993.9% SASMFL-2 Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP
AS6140 369 158 21157.2% IMPSA ImpSat
AS22291 267 67 20074.9% CC04 Charter Communications
AS6327 223 28 19587.4% SHAWC-2 Shaw Communications
Inc.
AS5668 383 193 19049.6% CIH-12 CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.
AS721603 426 17729.4% DNIC DoD Network Information
Center
Total 15542 5709 983363.3% Top 30 total
Possible Bogus Routes
24.138.80.0/20 AS11260 AHSICHCL Andara High Speed Internet c/o Halifax
Cable Ltd.
24.246.0.0/17AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
24.246.38.0/24 AS25994 NPGCAB NPG Cable, INC
24.246.128.0/18 AS7018 ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
64.46.4.0/22 AS11711 TULARO TULAROSA COMMUNICATIONS
64.46.12.0/24AS7850 IHIGHW iHighway.net, Inc.
64.46.27.0/24AS8674 NETNOD-IX N
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Deepak Jain [Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:37:54AM -0400]: > >You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > >accounts already. :P > > > >-Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols > > > > If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a > 1GB mailbox operated by another network? What exaclty is the benefit of having a g-point-mail account? It's the same benefit you have when joining Orkut: You are 31337 if you have an account, as not everybody can participate. The most interesting thing is how many people still are giving all their personal data out to big companies for data mining. Sincerly, Nico P.S.: If you are interested in the background of this story, read http://nico.schotteli.us/papers/net/orkut-diary for more information. -- Keep it simple & stupid, use what's available. Please use pgp encryption: 8D0E 27A4 is my id. http://nico.schotteli.us | http://linux.schottelius.org pgpVvsbXsleV0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another scam from nigeria? -- Fwd: CONGRATULATIONS!!!
> Oh come on, what do they think we are some kind of super idiots? > *dials phone number* Anyone happen to know the punishment for this > kind of crime, so I can call his local police? It's not from Nigeria! > Please contact your claims agent immediately,to begin your claims process; > > MR. TREVOR McCARTHY, > CLAIMS DEPT. MANAGER, > COMET FINANCE & INSURANCE LTD. > FAX: +27 115076316 That is a phone number in Jo'burg, South Africa. > THE LOTTERY COORDINATOR, > EGOLI LOTTERY SA. > #7 LE-ROUX AVE, > ALBERTON, JHB. > SOUTH AFRICA. > Fax: +27826401382 And that is a cellphone number served up by Vodacom in South Africa. This is interesting because most of these fake lottery winnings have directed people to call a cellphone in the Netherlands. Now, they have shifted to South Africa, a country that was once a Dutch colony and where many people still speak a Dutch dialect called Afrikaans. The South African Police Service has a page http://www.saps.gov.za/faq/faq4.htm where you can report this. By the way, it only took me about 5 minutes to identify the phone numbers and find the SAPS info using Google. --Michael Dillon
Public access Wi-Fi after Hurricane Charley
Wi-Fi emerges as emergency communications alternative in Fla. Some cellular carriers are still struggling with power outages News Story by Bob Brewin AUGUST 19, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Public access Wi-Fi hot spots have become a key communications alternative in Florida in the wake of Hurricane Charley, with the local franchisee of Panera Bread Co. reporting a 50% increase in traffic for the free Wi-Fi service it offers in 34 outlets in the state. [...] The widespread power outage hit cellular service in some parts of the state. Verizon Wireless had only 80% of its cell sites operating in the Orlando area due to power outages and 97% of its network operating in southwest Florida, according to a company spokesman. Verizon Wireless, based in Bedminster N.J., had backup generators to keep the service up and running, but by today they "started to run out of gas," the spokesman said. The Sprint PCS division of Sprint Corp. avoided that problem by ensuring that it had third-party fuel contracts in place as part of a business continuity plan, according to John Quigley, Sprint's director of network operations. Sprint had 200 generators in place in Florida as of Monday, moving in some from as far away as Chicago, Quigley said. As of today, 98% of the Sprint PCS network in Florida was operational, up from 94% yesterday and 91% on Tuesday, Quigley said. Cingular Wireless in Atlanta deployed 80 generators in Florida to ensure continuity of operations and on Tuesday started offering free emergency calls at its 22 retail outlets in Florida. http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/wifi/story/0,10801,95362,00.html?from=homeheads T-Mobile offers free Wi-Fi in Charley's wake Cellular companies are ready to bolster coverage, if needed News Story by Bob Brewin AUGUST 14, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - T-Mobile USA Inc. said last night it would offer free wireless Internet connections through Monday at the roughly 300 Wi-Fi hot spots it operates in Florida in the wake of Hurricane Charley. [...] Nationwide cellular carriers said they had ample resources in place to ensure service to customers in the aftermath of the storm. Cingular Wireless in Atlanta said in a statement that its switching centers have backup emergency generators. Cell sites have high-capacity battery backups, and some have emergency generators, ensuring a secure source of power, if needed. Cingular also has pre-positioned self-contained mobile cell sites, known as Cellular on Wheels Systems (COWS), which can be towed or driven into a disaster area to provide extra call capacity or to restore communications in an area with downed or knocked-out cellular towers. Sprint Corp. in Overland Park, Kan., said in a statement that its Sprint PCS division has also set up COWS in Florida to help with network recovery efforts if needed. Verizon Wireless, in Bedminster, N.J., said it also has its own fleet of COWS and Cells On Light Trucks that can be quickly rolled into a disaster area to provide extra network capacity. Verizon Wireless, in a statement, also noted that it conducted a nationwide disaster preparation drill earlier this year which simulated how it would handle a Florida hurricane. Verizon Wireless said more than 80% of its transmission sites in Florida have their own back up generators. It also has mobile generators available, should they be needed. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/recovery/story/0,10801,95283,00.html
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> since when nanog-l turned into gmailswaps.com ? He's not being sarcastic. There really are gmail swapping sites at http://www.gmailswap.com and http://www.gmailtrader.com --Michael Dillon
Re: Has postini been taken over?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > now why wasnt i bright enough to think of radius > > never mind, i think i got the hang of where to look for cookie cutter > samples ... > twasn't me who thought of it either :) > thanks! > > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > radius profile based filters, sorry I should have been more clear about > > that. > > >
Re: Has postini been taken over?
now why wasnt i bright enough to think of radius never mind, i think i got the hang of where to look for cookie cutter samples ... thanks! Christopher L. Morrow wrote: radius profile based filters, sorry I should have been more clear about that.
Re: Has postini been taken over?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > 'fantasy mail' is what we call this :( It's a pain and you have to port25 > > filter in AND out :( > > that must have been a nightmare especially with a large provider of > dialup pops for a whole lot of ISPs .. not as much as the filtering as > keeping track of the holes you punched in the filters so that customers > of an isp leasing pops from you can relay out through their own isp's > servers. radius profile based filters, sorry I should have been more clear about that. > > is there a doc for this somewhere online? i know at least some isps who > would appreciate being spoonfed a howto for this, right down to copy and > paste cisco acls ... > it's mostly radius stuff, though I'm sure someone could put simple examples together.
Re: Has postini been taken over?
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 'fantasy mail' is what we call this :( It's a pain and you have to port25 filter in AND out :( that must have been a nightmare especially with a large provider of dialup pops for a whole lot of ISPs .. not as much as the filtering as keeping track of the holes you punched in the filters so that customers of an isp leasing pops from you can relay out through their own isp's servers. is there a doc for this somewhere online? i know at least some isps who would appreciate being spoonfed a howto for this, right down to copy and paste cisco acls ... thanks! srs
