RE: [cacti-announce] Cacti 0.8.6j Released (fwd)
> > > How about something like: > > http://www.hdfgroup.org/whatishdf5.html > > I don't think they support transactional updates, which makes > it hard to use for live data. (A simple crash, and you need > to recover from > backup.) Going back to this thread, http://www.kx.com/ deals in financial transaction databases where they store millions of ticks. They appear to have a transactional based language with a solution that appears to be robust and fail resistant. I'm sure it has a price tag that goes along with the capabilities. Anyone encountered this before? -- Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.
NANOG39 - Toronto
Found in NANOG meeting rooms: 2 wireless headsets 1 power plug converter (white)
Anyone with SMTP clue at Verizon Wireless / Vtext?
Their gateway is blocking mail from my host. Of course, there is no clueful contact info on their webpage... Please hit me up offlist. Thanks, mike
Re: comcast spam policies
On 2/8/07, Al Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 links you to http://www.comcastsupport.com/rbl aka http://www.comcastsupport.com/sdcxuser/lachat/user/Blockedprovider.asp What Al said, in spades. That blacklist_comcastnet address IS the right address to use and that form feeds to it. --srs
Re: comcast spam policies
Albert Meyer wrote: Didn't we all figure out years ago that, when using a telephone or cable company for Internet service, you have to just use the pipe and get your services (mail, news, etc.) elsewhere? Bemoaning the poor quality of telco/cableco mail servers is kind of like wishing that the rain wouldn't be so damn wet. I just know you meant to add "with the exception of those few telco mail servers that are run well". -Jack
Re: comcast spam policies
On 2/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As if that is not bad enough only comcast customers can complain. The link given on the bounce email: http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 A pattern can apparently be discerned from a single email. The comcast guys at better at pattern recognition than most of us. Unlike AOL there is no person that can be mailed or contacted. Neither the link on the above page or [EMAIL PROTECTED] will respond except to (they claim) complains from individual customers. Actually, http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 links you to http://www.comcastsupport.com/rbl aka http://www.comcastsupport.com/sdcxuser/lachat/user/Blockedprovider.asp That form does not indicate that only Comcast users may use it. Its target is actually administrators of an IP address whose mail got blocked. I've used it before, and it has actually worked for me. Regards, Al Iverson Who does not work for Comcast. -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverabilty, see http://www.spamresource.com Message copyright 2007 by Al Iverson. For posts to SPAM-L, permission is granted only to this lists's owners to redistribute to their sub- scribers and to archive this message on site(s) under their control.
Re: comcast spam policies
Didn't we all figure out years ago that, when using a telephone or cable company for Internet service, you have to just use the pipe and get your services (mail, news, etc.) elsewhere? Bemoaning the poor quality of telco/cableco mail servers is kind of like wishing that the rain wouldn't be so damn wet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current comcast policy seems to be to backhole mail servers at random.
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Otis wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: > >> >> Alexander Harrowell wrote: >>> >>> It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" >>> that nothing was seriously amiss. >> >> Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be >> too far behind. > > When 2 of 13 root systems are affected (>90% loss), how many systems > will withstand such an attack when targeted lower within the hierarchy? > FWIW, the attack rates did not seem that high. > > -Doug > - On the same note and this just an observation, I hear two thoughts, some talk not using anycast and then there are others who stand their ground about anycast deployment. Looking at these attacks, F in particular, if my memory serves me correct, there are 35 f-root anycast nodes deployed. Maybe this helped in some respect. Then again, I like to see what kind of analysis comes out from the collected data. regards, /virendra -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFyjWbpbZvCIJx1bcRAipMAJ9gNkyYS0BTR4jVrBP8PiZ9CyILDACcC8Jx MNiY9T6Wzi60KtgaK3qLqnM= =kJk7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: comcast spam policies
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The current comcast policy seems to be to backhole mail > servers at random. This is true. We do mostly ecommerce hosting and often our customers have their own dedicated servers blacklisted from sending email notifications of new orders to their home comcast addresses. We have to request unlisting regularly. David
comcast spam policies
I will not ask if anyone at Comcast has a clue, because I do not need any dvds. If this not correct, I would appreciate hearing from anyone whose clue-ness exceeds 15%. The rest is a description/rant about comcast's policy as described to me by a couple of tech people reached by following voice mail from 1-800-comcast which really should be 1-800-328-7448. The current comcast policy seems to be to backhole mail servers at random. Safeport's internal mail server which is the source of no spam (cause only we guys can use it) was blackholed either at random, or because we sent one email to a comcast customer. As if that is not bad enough only comcast customers can complain. The link given on the bounce email: http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 A pattern can apparently be discerned from a single email. The comcast guys at better at pattern recognition than most of us. Unlike AOL there is no person that can be mailed or contacted. Neither the link on the above page or [EMAIL PROTECTED] will respond except to (they claim) complains from individual customers. I guess the message is you better use gmail if you are a comcast customer. I really don't mean this to start an endless thread. On the off chance that there is someone who can and will explain the logic behind this policy and or perhaps do something about it, that would be useful. Otherwise there is not much point in berating idiots. _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: Alexander Harrowell wrote: It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that nothing was seriously amiss. Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be too far behind. When 2 of 13 root systems are affected (>90% loss), how many systems will withstand such an attack when targeted lower within the hierarchy? FWIW, the attack rates did not seem that high. -Doug
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
> But that aspect was wasted time, since they're putting Ma Bell back > together again... Speaking of putting Ma Bell Back together again - you have to see this You Tube Video on AT&T - before they yank it. It does accurately chronicle the AT&T divestiture and Assembly again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFtcp4mNzA ENJOY. Cheers, Hank
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:17:34 -0800 "Aaron Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/7/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A caveat - Ndex 4 is usually "situation normal, members bored and > > discussing the relative merits of the Chicago and Kansas City cable > > tie knots." > > > > to be fair that was a pretty informative discussion for those of us > who were still wearing diapers when ma bell was broken up. > But that aspect was wasted time, since they're putting Ma Bell back together again... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
On 2/7/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A caveat - Ndex 4 is usually "situation normal, members bored and discussing the relative merits of the Chicago and Kansas City cable tie knots." to be fair that was a pretty informative discussion for those of us who were still wearing diapers when ma bell was broken up.
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
Alexander Harrowell wrote: > > It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that > nothing was seriously amiss. Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be too far behind. Jeff
Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers
It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that nothing was seriously amiss. Ndex value of 0, i.e. no traffic on-list, means either "all systems go!" or "outage so serious that Mitre is unreachable. Stockpile ammunition" Ndex value of 5, i.e. +/=100 mails/day, means "serious crisis" A caveat - Ndex 4 is usually "situation normal, members bored and discussing the relative merits of the Chicago and Kansas City cable tie knots."
