Re: Postmaster Operator List?

[Andy Davidson]

On 16 Nov 2007, at 15:54, Justin Scott wrote:


Is there a mailing list similar to NANOG specifically for e-mail
operations?  I've seen some smaller lists around that deal with  
specific

issues (spam, etc.) but have not seen a general postmaster operations
mailing list, though I'm sure there has to be one around somewhere.


Sorry for the noise.

I emailed -futures registering my interests for such a list, and it  
got a mixed response.  It's a shame, as like you I would like to see  
a busy, interesting, mail operations list, and derive value from one.


I think that it will always be to controversial to start a nanog  
'branded' mail operators list.  I also understand why the MAAWG lists  
are run as a closed system, but recognise this prevents smaller sites  
from taking part.


When discussing this with folks on -futures or irc people agree that  
a public mail operations list might be a good experiment, so I have  
just created one



  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Join here: http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop



I'll set the reply-to: to me to prevent further noise.

Best wishes
Andy

AOL Postmaster issues

[Drew Weaver]

I have a question which has been unanswerable by normal channels, I will post 
it here hopefully someone else has run into it and I will not waste too much of 
anyone's time with it.

Our abuse department has been receiving e-mails daily with our feedback loop 
with AOL about e-mails which were 'supposedly' sent about a year ago.

Does this mean that A) the message was sent almost year ago but was not read 
and marked as spam until today? Or b) the "abuser" is changing the date on the 
mail server which is messing with their means of reporting it in their feedback 
loops? (the second one doesn't seem likely, but if it is the case we would like 
to kick this guy off of our network...)

(shouldn't they have some limit on how long they will allow people to report 
spam?)

Below is the header and part of the message we're getting from AOL...

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, November 
15, 2007 3:17 PM Posted To: Microsoft Office Outlook Embedded Message
Conversation: Email Feedback Report for IP -ip address removed.. why not? --
Subject: Email Feedback Report for IP -ip address removed.. why not? --
This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP address -ip 
address removed.. why not? --on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:22:02 -0500

Thanks in advanced if any list members know, or if anyone from AOL sees this.

Sorry to anyone who sees this as a waste of their time..

-Drew

Re: AOL Postmaster issues

[Chris Owen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:

Our abuse department has been receiving e-mails daily with our  
feedback loop with AOL about e-mails which were 'supposedly' sent  
about a year ago.


Does this mean that A) the message was sent almost year ago but was  
not read and marked as spam until today? Or b) the "abuser" is  
changing the date on the mail server which is messing with their  
means of reporting it in their feedback loops? (the second one  
doesn't seem likely, but if it is the case we would like to kick  
this guy off of our network...)


Most likely this is A.  One of the many very frustrating things about  
the AOL feedback loop.


Chris


Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~  Lottery (noun):
President  ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax
Hubris Communications Inc  www.hubris.net




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHQb+rElUlCLUT2d0RAhM2AKCxvAt9MR5N2Vj7PkLGSwBCuB2ZigCfeWXq
9ETvC9yd5US/BV5+0QsQre4=
=KHBQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: AOL Postmaster issues

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:33:51 EST, Drew Weaver said:

> Our abuse department has been receiving e-mails daily with our feedback loop
> with AOL about e-mails which were 'supposedly' sent about a year ago.

It's amazing how often I see time-warp mail caused by somebody recovering
a busticated system, and their backup of /var/spool/mqueue dates back many
moons



pgpwLa9spVtuP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: VLANs

[Deepak Jain]

Sean Donelan wrote:


On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Rodney Joffe wrote:
I have too many services to just want to use a T1 or two as 
sacrificial pipes.  and I don't want to be messing around manually.


I need to be able to have the transit providers effectively provide 
isolation for each subnet, so my idea is to advertise each service up 
a separate rate-limited VLAN. So if one service is DDoS'd, and its 
100mb vlan is hosed, the other 9 services still cope easily with each 
of their 100mb vlans.


Seems simple and logical to me, but I wasn't sure what I was missing.


The trick isn't the classification part, but needing multiple hardware 
queues.  If you have multiple hardware queues, it doesn't matter

too much whether you use "virtual" things like MPLS, VLAN, DSCP, 802.1p,
PVCs, etc.  Most will work.

If you don't have multiple hardware queues, then it also doesn't matter
too much whether you use "virtual" things like MPLS, VLANs, DSCP, 802.1P,
PVCs, etc.  Most will not work.

Providers use sacrifical physical interfaces, e.g. a T1, because some 
routers aren't very good at managing multiple queues on a single physical

interface, and may not have multiple hardware queues on a single physical
interface.



These sacrificial interfaces don't have to go anywhere... as in, they 
can be an old router (or server) sitting all by itself talking to 
another router you care about.


I personally prefer to use L3 switches that can use an ASIC to blackhole 
traffic at exceedingly high rates and accept/originate routing feeds, 
but YMMV.


Deepak Jain
AiNET

Network Solutions domain transfer lock policy?

[Deepak Jain]

I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact change 
to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for 60 days.


I am aware of ICANN-approved behaviors like 60 days lock on new or 
transfered registrations.


This is a new curve ball and seems a little out-of-the-spirit of ICANN 
regulations (last I saw them).


Is anyone aware of this as a kosher activity and is anyone aware of any 
other registrars doing it? Keep in mind, these are legitimate contact 
changes and not suspicious in anyway.


Thanks in advance,

DJ

Re: Network Solutions domain transfer lock policy?

[ed]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:59:11 -0500
Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact
> change to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for
> 60 days.
> 
> I am aware of ICANN-approved behaviors like 60 days lock on new or 
> transfered registrations.
> 
> This is a new curve ball and seems a little out-of-the-spirit of
> ICANN regulations (last I saw them).
> 
> Is anyone aware of this as a kosher activity and is anyone aware of
> any other registrars doing it? Keep in mind, these are legitimate
> contact changes and not suspicious in anyway.

AFAIK the domain contact has nothing to do with the ICANN registration.
The contact details are an attribute that is between yourself and the
registrar.

Reminds me of an old phrase, "friends don't let friends register with
network solutions"?

Best just complain at "them" until they change the lock, it's not a
lock at ICANN its a registrar lock, from what I can tell from the
description.

-- 
The dirt trail to the Verizon Switch is screwed because of Shagy
downloading MP3's. The Network Admin is planning a christmas party.
:: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg.html


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Network Solutions domain transfer lock policy?

[William Herrin]

On Nov 19, 2007 5:59 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact change
> to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for 60 days.
>
> Is anyone aware of this as a kosher activity and is anyone aware of any
> other registrars doing it? Keep in mind, these are legitimate contact
> changes and not suspicious in anyway.

DJ,

This saved my keyster when someone hacked one of my domains earlier
this year (my fault; sloppy password). Because Netsol still held the
domain, I was able to get things resolved and get the domain back
under my control in about 36 hours. I can only imagine the nightmare
if the hacker had been able to transfer it out to another registry.

It'd be nice if Netsol could to better than 36 hours to restore a
hacked domain but I'd like it a whole lot less if the hacker could
transfer the domain out while waiting for me to notice and them to
investigate.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3005 Crane Dr.Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Network Solutions domain transfer lock policy?

[Bill Thompson]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:59:11 -0500
Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is anyone aware of this as a kosher activity and is anyone aware of
> any other registrars doing it? Keep in mind, these are legitimate
> contact changes and not suspicious in anyway.

I personally do not think it's kosher, but I do know that GoDaddy has
been doing this for quite some time. It's one of the many reasons I no
longer do business with them.

-- 
Bill Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Peering issue between PCCW and Cogent ?

[AD]

Anyone experiencing any peering issues between PCCW and Cogent ?  I have
been seeing timeouts all day from keynote and traceroutes from cogent when
trying to hit 208.71.120.64 on the east coast.

-Adam