Known communities for AS174?
Hello, I'm looking for a way to do path prepending for my prefix as it leaves AS174 (Cogent), one of my upstreams. The following: http://www.radb.net/cgi-bin/radb/whois.cgi?obj=AS174 suggests that at least as recently as last May they might have accepted: 3. Communities controlling Cogents AS path prepending for customer routes on egress: community effect 174:3000 do not announce 174:3001 prepend 174 1 time 174:3002 prepend 174 2 times 174:3003 prepend 174 3 times But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is out of date or maybe has something else to try? Thanks, David
Re: passport.net strange timeout problems
Could this be relate to the fact that Microsoft nixed the Passport service back in January? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/30/ms_ends_pass/ Andrew :) On 3/21/05 10:10 PM, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to investigate strange timeout problems with microsoft passport. The problem is that trying to get to any website that uses passport (tried hotmail.com, groups.yahoo.com) does not work and times out and going directly to passport.net causes redirect to login.passport.net where browser waits some time and then also times out (happens with both explorer and firefox). I would have considered it to be unique problems with particular install except that I have confirmed that it happens on multiple computers and I do not see any pattern either in subnet or in their config. I'm also unsure when this started as none of the computers are regularly used to access webistes that use passport. So if somebody ran into something like this before and knows of any network-related issue that could cause this, please let me know (possibly dns or specific filter could cause it?).
Re: Known communities for AS174?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Hubbard) wrote: But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is out of date or maybe has something else to try? Are you sure you're sending communities? Elmar. -- Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren. (PLemken, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) --[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
Re: sorbs.net
.. it means that the guy should know when to do it - and when not to. And he should be reachable, and should know enough to realize he's screwed up, and to fix it. Sadly, this is rather less common than simply knowing how to throw filters in - that's the easy part. Kind of like the difference between a mining engineer triggering carefully shaped and placed demolition charges, and Wile E Coyote lighting the fuse on a bundle of dynamite. There are a lot of people in this industry who claim to be engineers but they're not. In fact, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as an Internet network engineer because there are no published best practices for Internet network engineering and there is no formal oversight for Internet network engineering. This is the fundamental problem in Internet operations today. Too many cowboys and Wile E Coyotes. --Michael Dillon P.S. Has anyone else had a look at the PITAC report to the President on Cyber Security? http://www.itrd.gov/pitac/
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:35:02 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Suresh Luckily, quite a few people who turn on dumb spam filters do Suresh turn them off when contacted and told about their bad Suresh filtering. Some make the mistake of not doing so - and Suresh they'll be destined to lose email for their users, on a Suresh permanent basis. I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator lately who's policy is that loosing occasional email is ok if it means we keep out a whole bunch of spam. If they're that far over the fence I'd need a strong bull with a long rope to try to pull them back to my side. I keep trying to tell him I'm potentially losing business due to his position, but he's convinced spam is worse. Some people simply can't be educated. -- In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap, and much more difficult to find. -- Terry Pratchett
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 PST, Wes Hardaker said: I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator lately who's policy is that loosing occasional email is ok if it means we keep out a whole bunch of spam. If they're that far over the fence I'd need a strong bull with a long rope to try to pull them back to my side. I keep trying to tell him I'm potentially losing business due to his position, but he's convinced spam is worse. Some people simply can't be educated. On the other hand, which should he choose - *you* losing business due to his position, or *HIM* losing business if he takes the other position? If he lowers his spam filters enough to allow your *potentially* lost business through, and he loses 10% of his customers to someplace that has a heavier-duty spam filter policy, are you going to repay him for that lost revenue? pgp1s8OFT7Buo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 -0800, Wes Hardaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator lately who's policy is that loosing occasional email is ok if it means we keep out a whole bunch of spam. If they're that far over That is a far cry from far dumber filtering mistakes that keep happening, and that I have an issue with. If an admin has spam in hand - go ahead. Block till its fixed, if the numbers add up the way this guy says. And be prepared to listen, and to unblock If you are blocking based on your misreading of forged spam, or are implementing over-extreme filters, and dont want to listen to complaints about it, or to address false positives, consider downgrading the infrastructure you manage from production mailserver to etch a sketch More on spam-l or some other more appropriate list. I'm starting to repeat myself -srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:47:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a lot of people in this industry who claim to be engineers but they're not. In fact, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as an Internet network engineer because there are no published best practices for Internet network engineering If there were a centralized site to which to contribute such things, a site based on MediaWiki, for example (the engine which drives Wikipedia), would the members of this list contribute to it? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad? Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review... pgpkvAIZ1VGPP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and was signed by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then? -p --- paul galynin
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:47:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a lot of people in this industry who claim to be engineers but they're not. In fact, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as an Internet network engineer because there are no published best practices for Internet network engineering If there were a centralized site to which to contribute such things, a site based on MediaWiki, for example (the engine which drives Wikipedia), would the members of this list contribute to it? For those who have never heard of Wikipedia, it is an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. However, it is not a free-for-all. There is some structure to it and it has evolved to the point where where it really does provide accurate and comprehensive information at least equal to the big paper encyclopedias. It could actually help us solve the problem of getting best practices published. However, the Mediawiki tool itself is not the solution to the problem, only a vehicle towards a solution. We would need a large percentage of NANOG members to write (or review and correct) sections relating to their expertise. And Jay, before you put up this site, I suggest that you think long and hard about who will run/promote the site. The technical aspect of getting MediaWiki running on a server are trivial. The real challenge is in promoting the site and getting a high enough calibre of contributor. That will mean repeated status update presentations at NANOG meetings and a lot of chasing people in hallway discussions to get them to contribute. However, it could work and I'm glad that you suggested this because it is a nice incremental and evolutionary technique to collect and publish the knowledge of the profession. --Michael Dillon
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Scott Weeks wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. :P scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:18:57AM -1000, Scott Weeks said something to the effect of: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. scott Agreed. I'm thinking...this *might* (big, fat, bloated, grinning *might*) have a shot if Internet Service Provider referred to the party offering up subscribers to an Internet requesting user service, or if Internet access described access the Internet initiated, configured, and maintained to unwitting users' homes and businesses. When the connection is forged the other way around, the more logical... nay, undeniably less absurd and nonsensical prescription seems to be a firewall, subscription-based service, local DNS black/whitelisting, or some such other solution. If you don't know how to use those things, ask someone who does. Unlike other ills posed to some by connectivity, I know of no can-porn legistlation or other successful do-not-pr0n list. I don't think that demanding that the Internet clean up its act is going to pack much of a punch. your pr0n may vary, --ra -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:55:21AM -0800, John Kinsella said something to the effect of: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah. Get demented, early and often! whee, --ra -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. Roy Engehausen Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. does pulling the plug on the user's connection count? g your honor, we were just making sure our sinners^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers couldn't access lecherous content that hasn't made it onto the registry! -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote: CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. The question is is it required to be affordable? Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service fee of $9.95/packet. I remember at a previous job trying to bypass one of these filters to determine how easy it would be (during the eval, it's kinda funny to have someone come by and say try to reach pr0n now!). The first person to bypass it was the one that handled [EMAIL PROTECTED] only takes moments from a spam msg to get there.. short of having a live person (uh, isn't that called a parent?) review the material invovled, there will always be a way to bypass it, someone could hack some major content providers systems and serve out nothing but content that is restricted.. i don't see much that can be done to prevent those that truly want access to obtain it. - jared Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially they (the ISP) has to do it, huh? Remember, this _is_ Utah we're atlking about here... - ferg -- Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. Roy Engehausen
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy said something to the effect of: CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Isn't that demanding that an ISP provide, free of charge, a managed firewall service? I might be expecting too much, but wouldn't it stand to reason that link-chasing and downloading inherently constitute a request *to* receive content? At the risk of sounding like a proponent for public indecency snicker if Junior or Hubby or Wifey or whomever is hoarding porn and must be protected/stopped/brought back into the fold, I don't think it's really the responsibility of the ISP to care. Note to Utah (tm)*: the pervasion of perversion is nigh! ;) Buy a firewall and keep an eye on your kids. Neither the schools nor the ISPs are meant to raise them. bah, --ra *UT is OK with me. The disgruntled ramblings in here refer only to those whining to the ISPs to save them from their own Internet connection. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. Roy Engehausen Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- k. rachael treu, CISSP[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Bill Woodcock wrote: The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! So, it is voluntary on _both_ sides, _and_ it was made into a _law_ ? Can anyone confirm this ? Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs. Taking the assumption that we have all decided that Utah has asked us to do something that cannot definitively be done, it seems to me that the folks who offer ISP services in Utah need to decide what in fact can be done. I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of the search engines is a good thing. That said, not all such do, so one is forced to have a plan B. BTW, HTML PICS don't especially help with virus-bot-originated spam. It seems to me that a simple approach would be to provide a second DNS service in parallel with the first, and advise Utah that if it would be so kind as to inform us of the DNS names of the spam services that they want treated specially, those names will be put into the new DNS service as the address of this system is 127.0.0.1. Customers can now decide which kind of DNS service they want. Alternatively, and better perhaps for dealing with the email issues, one could put two VRFs on every router - one that has full routes and one that has a number of null routes. If the State of Utah would be so kind as to specify the list of prefixes to be null-routed... The key thing here is to provide a service that in fact works for some definition of that term, and tell Utah that unfunded mandates don't especially help. They have the power to pass any law they want, but in context they have an obligation to the SPs affected to provide an objective way to determine whether the SP is in compliance, and by extension, to provide a reasonable definition of and way to implement the service.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:19:40 -0500 From: Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote: CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. The question is is it required to be affordable? Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service fee of $9.95/packet. I remember at a previous job trying to bypass one of these filters to determine how easy it would be (during the eval, it's kinda funny to have someone come by and say try to reach pr0n now!). The first person to bypass it was the one that handled [EMAIL PROTECTED] only takes moments from a spam msg to get there.. short of having a live person (uh, isn't that called a parent?) review the material invovled, there will always be a way to bypass it, someone could hack some major content providers systems and serve out nothing but content that is restricted.. i don't see much that can be done to prevent those that truly want access to obtain it. The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon address RBLs if handled properly. Any chance that it will block access to pr0n? No. But, within the limited parameters of the law passed, it might be workable. This is not a claim that it is a reasonable law or that it will really serve to any end-user's benefit, only that it's not a huge issue for most ISPs. Of course, if it is upheld and lots of states jump on the bandwagon with similar legislation, the scalability of the system comes into question. There is going to be much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth when parents discover that it really doesn't work and the demand goes out for something better. They will claim that the state promised, but they won't be taking legal action against the state. :-( -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Re: Known communities for AS174?
But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is out of date or maybe has something else to try? In addition to Elmar's comment, are you clearing the BGP session (either soft outbound or hard, soft recommended) so that your announced prefixes reflect the policy change? Stephen
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of: It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for that matter. I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured, even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if anything else slips through like pesky news or children's pages or something icky. Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to refuse me this service? sniff --ra ;) -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine writes: Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs. The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
thanks steve. i'm distracted. just got bit by red lake.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Baker Fred wrote: I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of the search engines is a good thing. That said, not all such do, so one is forced to have a plan B. BTW, HTML PICS don't especially help with virus-bot-originated spam. Internet Explorer has had provisions to use RSAC ratings forever. One thing that the competing browsers (which I like better) have *never* had. -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:= : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : : and search engines. : : : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top : : : Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. : : Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad? : Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Paul G wrote: : perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and : wassigned by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then? Ok, passing wasn't the correct term. IANAL. Here's what I saw: I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law. and A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year. That is what I meant, but it has been pointed out that this extract is not accurate anyway. Damn journalists... :-) scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Oberman writes: The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon address RBLs if handled properly. That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20050307cdtanalysis.pdf --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
* Steven M. Bellovin: The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm Given that the bill tries to outlaw the distribution of pornography (which means that it won't withstand judicial review), I think it's astonishingly ISP-friendly. For example, it doesn't seem to make you responsible for transit traffic in general, like many ISP contracts do. 8-)
IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't accept mail. I still consider it silly to absorb the sender's bandwidth like this (and all transits' bandwidth until someone is smart enough to put a filter up). -andreas -- Andreas Ott[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
(Apparently I am more movd by the topic of saving porn than I ever imagined... ;) ) On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:39:39AM -0800, Kevin Oberman said something to the effect of: ..snip snip.. The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon address RBLs if handled properly. In my opinion... Actually, it still is pretty onerous, just not as bad as what was suggested in the former interpretation. Having come from the ISP pool myself, I wouldn't want to have to manage this list. Unlike bogons and RBLs, this sort of thing isn't deployed globally, and would have to be managed inconsistently across interfaces of those who request it. Who will handle the requests? Who will deploy the changes? Should large ISPs' core networking teams be handling requests directly from customers? Will the same teams managing the requests be called in during major infrastructure changes that might impact the deployment of such a solution? What liability will the ISP have if the block list is mistakenly removed from a requester's inteface? All very basic (and far from being a completel list) that suggest lost man hours to deploy and maintain. Perhaps if the government is interested in taking such a matter into its own hands, an agency should be tasked with managing firewall services for these customers, at its own (read: taxpayer :( ) cost. If governing bodies are even going to *try* to legislate morality in this realm, they are going to have to fund at least part of it, I would think... --ra Any chance that it will block access to pr0n? No. But, within the limited parameters of the law passed, it might be workable. This is not a claim that it is a reasonable law or that it will really serve to any end-user's benefit, only that it's not a huge issue for most ISPs. Of course, if it is upheld and lots of states jump on the bandwagon with similar legislation, the scalability of the system comes into question. There is going to be much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth when parents discover that it really doesn't work and the demand goes out for something better. They will claim that the state promised, but they won't be taking legal action against the state. :-( -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 -- K. rachael treu, CISSP[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites containing material harmful to minors... ...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year 2005-06 only, to establish the adult content registry... They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rachael Treu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:35 AM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: Richard Irving; Roy; Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of: It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for that matter. I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured, even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if anything else slips through like pesky news or children's pages or something icky. Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to refuse me this service? sniff --ra ;) -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. if they made it publically accessible, added user ratings and thumbnails for entries and stuck a few affiliate banners for some of the popular sites up top, i'd bet they'd be *making* money. oh wait, someone's already done that.. -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 -0600, Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. Call the filtering program SCOwl... -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 22 11:38:22 2005 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. You may have _thought_ you were making a wry joke. I'm *NOT* so sure. Can/may, and shall/will _are_ terms of legal art, with precise _legal_ meanings, Notably, the former terms denote discretionary actions, while the latter ones denote mandatory actions. The RFC 'conventional' usage derives from the _legal_ meanings of those terms. The Utah statute is bad law, and is _highly_unlikely_ to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Because it is the _government_ that is compiling, maintaining, and distributing the banned list. The chilling effect on 'free speech' argument is nearly certain to succeed. That _aside_, the may not language, as opposed to shall not, looks like a *major* goof on the part of those who drafted the legislation. One might argue that the 'legislative intent' was to make the action mandatory on the part of the service provider, but that would be a *difficult* 'sell' to the courts - considering the *long* history of the distinct, disjoint, meanings of can/may and shall/will. For any potentially affected provider, it is *definitely* worth running the idea past one's professional legal counsel -- if the law says we 'may not' do this, does that mean it is at our option, or is it mandatory?
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Paul G said something to the effect of: - Original Message - From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. if they made it publically accessible, added user ratings and thumbnails for entries and stuck a few affiliate banners for some of the popular sites up top, i'd bet they'd be *making* money. oh wait, someone's already done that.. Woohoo! A new pr0n-meta-index! A $$-maker, indeed. pr0n.gov --ra -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially they (the ISP) has to do it, huh? Providing filtering software at no additional cost is sufficient.
Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
* Andreas Ott: http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ And I thought they knew better by now that a hijacked windows pc won't accept mail. [...] The CNN article tries to describe IBM's proposed system, but fails badly. IBM's description is available at: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/fairuce It doesn't seem too bad, as long as you don't use it for blocking email. The C/R part is, of course, an unfortunate mistake.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote: They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Well maybe they're just trying to justify their... uh... research. w
Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the exploited machine patching in the process. I managed to setup such a system a while ago with nimda traffic however I could not a find a software tool which exploited a nimda exploited machine which could then patch it and remove the virus (Ie a remote doctor without you knowing :) Colin Johnston
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 CST, Kathryn Kessey said: Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. You've got rational, religious, and an implied politics all in the same sentence. Other than that, it would be a better idea, yes... pgpPaWSWgiucz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
* Colin Johnston: The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the exploited machine patching in the process. Doesn't work reliably. A lot of bots close the attack vector they used, to prevent infection by just another bot. There's also a lot of cross-infection behind packet filters, which stop the same attack from the Internet.
RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Kathryn Kessey wrote: ...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites containing material harmful to minors... ...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year 2005-06 only, to establish the adult content registry... They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. somehow I suspect more than just pr0n sites will end up in that 'adult content registry'. dont be suprised if sites critical of mormonism get blocked too. they can be as bad as scientologists in this respect. -Dan
Re: Known communities for AS174?
On 2005-03-22-03:30:32, David Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] 3. Communities controlling Cogents AS path prepending for customer routes on egress: community effect 174:3000 do not announce 174:3001 prepend 174 1 time 174:3002 prepend 174 2 times 174:3003 prepend 174 3 times But I've tried setting each of those and it doesn't seem to have any effect. Anyone know if that info is out of date or maybe has something else to try? I'm of the understanding that Cogent supports the following BGP communities (and no others): 174:990 - This community makes sure that the customer's route does not leave the Cogent AS of 16631. What this means is that if a peering partner or BGP customer of Cogent is trying to send traffic to this route, the peering partner or BGP customer of Cogent will not see this route from Cogent, and will therefore not send packets for that destination to the Cogent network. 174:991 - This community makes sure that the customer's routes are not passed on to Cogent's peering or transit partners, but are sent to Cogent's BGP customers. Almost the same situation as 16631:990, except that BGP customers of Cogent will see the route, and will have the option of sending those packets via Cogent. 174:10,95,100,105,110 - Each of these communities sets a different local preference on a customer's routes. A detailed explanation of what these are is beyond the scope of this document. However, 16631:10 will have the effect that even inside the Cogent network, the Cogent network will prefer any other path seen as best before using the customer's line. This could be used, for example, if a customer has a line with another ISP, and wants to never use the Cogent line for traffic (even from Cogent itself) except when the other line is down. With that said, your best bet might be to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and request an updated list. Hope this helps, -a
Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Why even bother responding. Just imagine frontbridge (using them an example, I have no affiliation with them) responding to each and every spam they block..something like 7 terrabytes of data per week or so. I guess this is one way to justify for more bandwidth :-) regards, /virendra Colin Johnston wrote: | The better idea would be fingerprint the spam to match the bot used to match | the exploit used to run the bot to then reverse exploit back to the | exploited machine patching in the process. | I managed to setup such a system a while ago with nimda traffic however I | could not a find a software tool which exploited a nimda exploited machine | which could then patch it and remove the virus | (Ie a remote doctor without you knowing :) | | Colin Johnston | | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCQHd3pbZvCIJx1bcRAhPZAJsFJeNXkjKbtUkiMG5LKUH1C1ipPwCfYG1W KHZwd5enWFB+mTp5kkJaEyw= =ZtDG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. Can ISPs get around this by declaring themselves to be private clubs? ;) There was a rather poorly attended NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City a couple years ago. Between bars, er, private clubs, that required (very cheap) memberships to get in the door, the no more than one watered down beer on the table at a time rule, the guys who looked like secret service agents video taping the the gay pride people (all three of them...) outside the Temple, and the repeated you want to rent a car? On a Sunday?!? responses from people in the viscinity of the closed car rental counters, it was a cultural expeience. Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. Ignoring the legal and commercial questions and focusing on the technical requirements, there are several ways they could have done this. China and Saudi Arabia accomplish this (China for political content, and Saudi Arabia for porn) with national firewalls. So, if the same content were going to be blocked for all users in Utah, and if porn sites could somehow be prevented from operating in Utah, a monopoly transit proivder for all Utah ISPs with a big porn blocking firewall in front of it might do the trick. I hear it works in Saudi Arabia... But in this case, Utah hasn't chosen to use China or Saudi Arabia as its model, nor have they copied the first round of attempts at this sort of thing by various US states, which tended to give ISPs the burden of figuring out whether packets flowing through their network were indecent and imposed requirements on people in other states. I suspect this will make Utah different enough that a lot of national networks will decide it's not worth doing business there. But for Utah-focused ISPs who can figure out how to make a firewall or proxy server speak the same protocol as the state-run database, this should be an opportunity to charge higher prices in the face of reduced competition. This seems like something that could be implemented on a per-user basis with a little bit of policy based routing. Is it a good idea? Certainly not. Is it legal? I hope not. But is it so badly conceived as to be unimplementable if it ever gets to the enforcement stage? I don't think so. -Steve
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill --- snip --- Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. i think i remember hearing about a municipal fast-e man and ftth deployment in salt lake city. who needs 100meg for dictionary.com lookups? ;] -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
on 3/22/05 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: The question is is it required to be affordable? Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service fee of $9.95/packet. According to the bill: (3)(b)(i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider may not charge a consumer for blocking material or providing software under this section, except that a service provider may increase the cost to all subscribers to the service provider's services to recover the cost of complying with this section. (3)(b)(ii) A service provider with fewer than 7,500 subscribers may charge a consumer for providing software under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) if the charge does not exceed the service provider's cost for the software. -Richard
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Steve Gibbard said something to the effect of: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. Can ISPs get around this by declaring themselves to be private clubs? ;) Good point..! Could they charge a membership fee and be forgiven compliance? Because ISPs certainly don't reap the government bail-outs or assurances (yet) that are afforded to public utilities, either... Regulated as public, levied against as private...where *is* the safe zone or loophole for ISPs? :? speculative_musing I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can be applied to the rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to accommodate other categories of information deemed to be objectionable. (I haven't yet read the complete bill, but will be interested to see how clearly codified the parameters for branding content as adult are.) On the other hand...what doors will this open for the converse...for entities who wish to have the government step in and mandate that the ISPs restrict delivery of content *from* them, of their content, or of content to others? This hydra could have many heads...one that looks like the DMCA, one like the RIAA, one that looks like pr0n-haters not wanting anyone to view it, one for each religious or political zealot group out there, one for each brand name... Poorly-conceived bills like this may set precedent for a number of slippery slopes. /speculative_musing How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? --ra There was a rather poorly attended NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City a couple years ago. Between bars, er, private clubs, that required (very cheap) memberships to get in the door, the no more than one watered down beer on the table at a time rule, the guys who looked like secret service agents video taping the the gay pride people (all three of them...) outside the Temple, and the repeated you want to rent a car? On a Sunday?!? responses from people in the viscinity of the closed car rental counters, it was a cultural expeience. Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. Ignoring the legal and commercial questions and focusing on the technical requirements, there are several ways they could have done this. China and Saudi Arabia accomplish this (China for political content, and Saudi Arabia for porn) with national firewalls. So, if the same content were going to be blocked for all users in Utah, and if porn sites could somehow be prevented from operating in Utah, a monopoly transit proivder for all Utah ISPs with a big porn blocking firewall in front of it might do the trick. I hear it works in Saudi Arabia... But in this case, Utah hasn't chosen to use China or Saudi Arabia as its model, nor have they copied the first round of attempts at this sort of thing by various US states, which tended to give ISPs the burden of figuring out whether packets flowing through their network were indecent and imposed requirements on people in other states. I suspect this will make Utah different enough that a lot of national networks will decide it's not worth doing business there. But for Utah-focused ISPs who can figure out how to make a firewall or proxy server speak the same protocol as the state-run database, this should be an opportunity to charge higher prices in the face of reduced competition. This seems like something that could be implemented on a per-user basis with a little bit of policy based routing. Is it a good idea? Certainly not. Is it legal? I hope not. But is it so badly conceived as to be unimplementable if it ever gets to the enforcement stage? I don't think so. -Steve -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: IRC bots...
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:31:35AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Alan Sparks wrote: Am I the only one who is getting mailbombed by dozens of these duplicate messages? Could have something to do with folks not trimming conversation participants from the TO: fields. Or, more closely, with people whose mailers don't support reply to list (or it's first cousin: reply to recipient), and therefore have to use 'G'roup reply to answer list mail. Cheers, -- jr let us take the obligatory munging thread off-list, 'k? a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Known communities for AS174?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote: On 2005-03-22-03:30:32, David Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Communities controlling Cogents AS path prepending for customer routes on egress: community effect 174:3000 do not announce 174:3001 prepend 174 1 time 174:3002 prepend 174 2 times 174:3003 prepend 174 3 times I'm of the understanding that Cogent supports the following BGP communities (and no others): [ snip ] Not a Cogent customer, but they have a list of supported communities in the comments for the RIPE RR entry for AS174 (which seems to have been updated fairly recently). The communities shown in the original post also show up there. w
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- Rachael Treu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: speculative_musing I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can be applied to the rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to accommodate other categories of information deemed to be objectionable. (I haven't yet read the complete bill, but will be interested to see how clearly codified the parameters for branding content as adult are.) Disclaimer: I lived in and around Salt Lake City for 10 years, no I'm not Mormon, and I have always thought that Utah is the best place in the world to get a flat tire, becuase everyone will fall all overthemselves to help you. That said, I've seen this kind of thing from Utah politicians before - they were some of the driving factors behind the V-Chip and in mandating that cablecos offered a service which was all the channels except those which regularly show adult content, which, believe it or not, was not common when they offered it. I would be VERY surprised if they also added any (non-pr0n) other topics to this block-list. There is a strong distinction made in UT between pr0n and everything else: no one ever tried to expand the concept wrt the cablecos to any of the other objectionable things they may show. I remember when The Last Temptation of Christ showed in a movie theatre there, so they're not so bad as it may at first seem. How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, and they've had some success in restricting other public displays of adult activities (believe it or not, there used to be strip clubs within 4 blocks of the mormon temple there - the city council rezoned, and they moved 3 miles downroad). David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com NEW ALBUM, The Sound and the Furry available at http://www.cdbaby.com/thefranchise __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ If this write-up is accurate, then this is incredibly stupid in multiple ways and on multiple levels. I *hope* that this is just a misperception based on poor writing and that nobody at IBM is actually seriously contemplating something that's simultaneously useless and abusive. ---Rsk
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote: They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Well maybe they're just trying to justify their... uh... research. Movie Day at the Supreme Court: http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00982/008860/title/Subject/topic/Constitutional%20Law_First%20Amendment%20-%20Freedom%20of%20Speech/filename/constitutionallaw_1_86 Cheers, -- jr 'sorry bout the ugly link' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm Steven M. Bellovin wrote: That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20050307cdtanalysis.pdf --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Thankfully, Steve's on the ball, and folks should read those. Presumably, every ISP is a financial supporter of EFF and CDT. If not, now's the time! But the bill goes a lot farther than reported. (1) It takes current Utah prohibition on pornography and raises the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. Every ISP operator can look forward to MONTHS and YEARS (instead of the previous 7 days) in jail. (2) It adds harmful to minors -- and makes it a state attorney general decision on whatever that might be. This is a silly nebulous term that has been used lately by the peeping tom religious right, because every other legal term they've tried has already been struck down by the courts. Just like shrub's administration made up the new term enemy combatants instead of the old term prisoner of war. AFAIK, no court has ever found ANYTHING to be harmful to minors. Making this an attorney general decision is an attempt at bypassing public hearings. Note the list itself will be access restricted electronic format -- that is, secret. (3) A new criminal penalty for a content provider's failure to properly rate content. Looks like every hosting provider will have to leave the state. You'll probably have to shut down all outside access to any universities, schools, and libraries. And every corporation will need to move it's data and web presence out of state. (4) Every ISP will have to make sure they have fewer than 7500 customers, because that's the level at which you can charge them for the millions it's going to cost to defend your lawsuits. Presumably, you can do this by creating separate subsidiaries. Alert your CEOs now. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? Any bill with anti-pornography as its title is going to be a freight train in the Utah legislature. Nobody is going to get in front of it for fear of being portrayed as pro-pornography. I knew this sobering fact early on in the life of this bill. In its original form, it would have used IP addresses for blocking and would have introduced criminal penalties on ISPs if anything managed to slip by. Regardless of whether the ISP's filter was being circumvented or not. The bill's sponsor was good in working with me, the only ISP here that knew or was willing to come out against the bill. However, I was well aware that all I could strive for was to reduce the ISP impact of the bill, not make large deletions or changes. There were also a handful of individuals here who had direct experience with commercial software who were appalled at the nature of the bill and also worked against it. Large nationwide ISPs, who were involved in discussions early on, were strangely silent, instead letting the Internet Alliance write a letter for them. I do not believe the Attorney General's office here knows what they are signing up for. You may remember they had a porn-czar a few years back whose position was dissolved over lack of funding. Somehow the AG believes that maintaining and arbitrating an Internet blacklist will be easier and cheaper. In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business. We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software are open for editing and inspection is the reason I chose this over other commercial methods. This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. Please do not generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a select few.
Please verify RFC1918 filters
We here at AOL have noticed that there are still some people filtering 172.0.0.0/8, which is causing AOL subscribers to get blocked from some sites. As a matter of general IP route filtering hygene I thought it worth mentioning (again) to see if we can get this tamped down (or, better still, stamped out). For reference, RFC1918 20 bit block space is 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) ARIN-assigned AOL block ranges that have 172 in the first octet are: 172.128.0.0/10 172.192.0.0/12 172.208.0.0/14 Please double check your filters to make sure you are not accidently blocking AOL in the non-RFC1918 space. It would be useful to pass this along to your downstreams as well. AOL is also working directly with the companies who have misconfigured firewalls where we notice problems with filters. /vijay
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
pashdown wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: snip This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates, but the Politicians. Please do not generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a select few. The Moral Majority were Neither.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues. yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks lucy for the reference to http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=113 and these things seem to play out in the courts, not the mailing lists. yawn randy
Re: sorbs.net
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 04:38:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ Me: ] If there were a centralized site to which to contribute such things, a site based on MediaWiki, for example (the engine which drives Wikipedia), would the members of this list contribute to it? For those who have never heard of Wikipedia, it is an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. However, it is not a free-for-all. There is some structure to it and it has evolved to the point where where it really does provide accurate and comprehensive information at least equal to the big paper encyclopedias. In general, and you can get a fairly good idea of the provenance of a given fact if you need to rely on it for something. It could actually help us solve the problem of getting best practices published. However, the Mediawiki tool itself is not the solution to the problem, only a vehicle towards a solution. We would need a large percentage of NANOG members to write (or review and correct) sections relating to their expertise. Correct: we would. I'm a fairly good general and structural editor, but for this, I'd likely even need for someone(s) to contribute a good structural framework onto which to hang the necessary information. Wiki's *do* have the nice advantage that the content is structure free: you can build and rebuild any ontology around the information that suits you, and indeed multiple ones (topic index, tutorial, etc) around the *same* information. And Jay, before you put up this site, I suggest that you think long and hard about who will run/promote the site. The technical aspect of getting MediaWiki running on a server are trivial. The real challenge is in promoting the site and getting a high enough calibre of contributor. That will mean repeated status update presentations at NANOG meetings and a lot of chasing people in hallway discussions to get them to contribute. As far as running it, I was considering letting Wikipedia do it. They've got a service that the founder of Wikipedia cooked up called Wikicities; same rough idea as Geocities (centralized hosting, your content), but they're pickier about who'll they'll start one for (for obvious reasons). I need to investigate whether they host those sites on the Wikipedia cluster (where, in general, the connectivity and support are reasonably good and improving)... though as you note, installing and maintaining a small one is pretty trivial. As far as promoting it? If we build it, they will come. Google is your friend. Making clear what it is and who's writing for it is enough for the second-tier visitors, and they'll likely word-of-mouth it to the first-tier. As far as I can see, the fact that it's all in one place makes the making the net a better place motivation more applicable. However, it could work and I'm glad that you suggested this because it is a nice incremental and evolutionary technique to collect and publish the knowledge of the profession. I've become *quite* fond of Wiki's for knowledge capture. The ease of editing and linkage locality of reference they provide make it *much* simpler for people to post the things they know and believe (though distinguishing the two can be ... interesting at times). Not alone because I *am* a network operator (however customer-side and small) who knows that they don't know everything, it's something I'd like to see happen. Somehow. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
The Utah governor's name is Jon Huntsman. Use the word huntsman as new slang for some sexual act which would make a dead man blush until people demand that any site using the word huntsman be blocked. -Name Withheld By Request
Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion. randy
the gateway of delight (was Net-porn bill)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Randy Bush wrote: maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues. yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks lucy for the reference to http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=113 and for those of you who don't have the time to read this whole thing, two tasty bits: So the relationship with books and plays and stories we develop in the school of morals is a profoundly, intensely, essentially democratic one, and it`s characterised by mutual responsibility. It places demands on the reader, because that is the nature of a democracy: citizens have to play their part. If we don`t bring our own best qualities to the encounter, we will take little away. Furthermore, it isn`t static: there is no final, unquestionable, unchanging authority. It`s dynamic. It changes and develops as our understanding grows, as our experience of reading - and of life itself - increases. Books we once thought great come to seem shallow and meretricious; books we once thought boring reveal their subtle treasures of wit, their unsuspected shafts of wisdom. And this progress is real progress; it`s not the endless regression of shifting sand underfoot and the shimmering falsity of a mirage endlessly retreating ahead, it`s solid stepping stones, and clear understanding. And it`s voluntary. Because this is the thing I really want to get across: the school of morals works best when it doesn`t work like a school. The way real reading happens, the way in to the school of morals, goes through the gateway of delight. AND I haven`t mentioned simple human wickedness. Or laziness, or greed, or fear, or the strongest regiment of all in the army of darkness: stupidity. Any of those can bring down the school of morals in a day. I haven`t mentioned death. I haven`t mentioned hazard, or the environmental recklessness that will do for us all if we don`t change our way of life. These are mighty forces, and I think they will defeat the school of morals, in the end. But that doesn`t mean we should give up and surrender. Nor does it mean we should turn the school of morals into a fortress, and surround it with rules and systems and procedures, and look out over the ramparts with suspicion and hostility. That would be a different kind of surrender. I think we should act as if. I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. I think that while believing that the school of morals is probably doomed, we should act as if it were not. We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding; we should act as if life were going to win. We should act as if we were celebrating a wedding: we should act as if we were attending the marriage of responsibility and delight.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Owen --On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:18 AM -0800 Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpSaqiaxY9X8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Proofpoint
If you are running Proofpoint appliances or software in a relatively high (25k to 30k messages per hour) traffic environment, I would love to hear from you regarding your experiences. I will summarize to the list if there is aany interest; until then, please reply to me directly. thanks much, matt ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Resolution - RE: Known communities for AS174?
Talked with Cogent IP Engineering today, was doing my own prepending in the meantime. I received a number of replies on and off list with quite a bit of conflicting info from Cogent doesn't support any communities other than do not announce to they support this or that to references of RIPE and RADb both of whom seem to have some outdated info. It turns out they do support a bunch of communities, including path prepending of one, two and three times which are what I was looking for, and for at least the US market, they're all in the customer user guide which I hadn't received; no I really didn't receive it not just didn't read it. :-) The person I spoke with was going to have someone update RADb with current information as what's there is about eight months old I think. I ended up having to clear the peer session hard but then my community was applied and is functioning as intended. Only thing missing that would be really nice would be something like Level 3 where you can selectively prepend to a specific peer AS of theirs. :-) But they were very responsive as soon as got in touch with the right group. David
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? well, actually, it sounds as if that would be your (the utah isp's) responsibility - unless the state of utah starts trying to apply its law(s) to other states (countries)... /joshua -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
joshua sahala wrote: On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Yes. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? well, actually, it sounds as if that would be your (the utah isp's) responsibility - unless the state of utah starts trying to apply its law(s) to other states (countries)... NO, see 76-10-1233(1) A content provider that is domiciled in Utah, or generates or hosts content in Utah, ... That's why I mentioned that hosters, and other content generating companies of any kind, will have to move out of the state. The reason that generic hosting facilities have to move is obvious, since nobody screens users -- web pages, blog comments, etc. Why other businesses? For example, no drug companies or pharmacies can have their businesses in Utah; they sell contraceptives, and generate information too sensitive for the tender eyes of minors. Since this law takes effect in January, 2006, the time to begin moving your company is Real Soon Now. Unless you just happen to have FELONY bail bond sitting around cash on hand -- typically $100,000 -- and plenty of funds for lawyers. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Weird Cisco Behavior
Hey Guys, I was wondering if any of you are seeing anything weird going on with any Cisco gear you may have? It started earlier today. I have some AS5850's in remote pop's around the US and all of a sudden they all started to drop packets at the same time. Some of them actually rebooted themselves and when this happened it made several other ones also either reboot themselves or drop packets. None of my other non-cisco gear was affected by this. I dont see any weird activity except some probing going on on port 445. I have a call in to Cisco-Tac but wanted to know if anybody is seeing the same thing. Thanks, Joel Perez ntera.net
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
At 08:41 PM 3/22/2005, Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites would, I think, would be a measured response to idiot legislators. It could be give Utah the Finger Day or some such.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Bill, I'll be happy to contact the IT and/or policy people at any or all of the Tribal Governments who's jurisdictions are surrounded by, or proximal to, those of the state of Utah. (a) They could use the business, just like anyone else, and (b) they are not subject to Utah's state law (and before any smarty pants says PL 280 Utah Code Annotated sections 63-36-9 to 63-36-21, 1991, let me point out that Utah has not amended its state constitutions and, consequently, their claims of jurisdiction are subject to legal challenge, and (deep breath), PL 280 wasn't intended to help missionaries chase foul mouthed apostates and 1st Amendment exercisers out of Indian Country), and quite attached to keeping that difference and keeping it visibly. NO, see 76-10-1233(1) A content provider that is domiciled in Utah, or generates or hosts content in Utah, ... Eric
Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:13:07 -0800, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion. Those ranges are AOL's dialup pool. Easy way to get something pingable in that space would be to get yourself a coaster^W AOL CD from the nearest 7-11 or Burger King -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
