Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:09:37PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: Watt is not amount of power but amount of power produced during time, i.e. its speed of energy consumption. Actually, that's the definition of power. (Energy/time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power A kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 360 joules. --Adam
Re: mail service with no mx (was - Re: Computer systems blamed for feeble hurricane response?)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:31:05PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: Telnet option negotiation is at Layer 7 after TCP connection has been established. Firewalls typically don't operate at this level (TCP session is Layer 4 if I remember right) and would refuse or reject (difference type of ICMP response) based solely on attempt to connect to certain ip or certain TCP/UDP port. Application layer firewalls have existed for at least 6 years. --Adam
Re: Stanford Hack Exposes 10,000
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:59:17PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: Yet another unfortunate disclosure... http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163701121 I wonder when schools are going to get the hint and stop using SSN's as ID numbers.. --Adam
Re: Stanford Hack Exposes 10,000
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 12:28:32AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: I really didn't mean to start an off-topic rat-hole discussion, but instead, point out how bad (nonchalant, cavalier) site security has become with reagards to storing sensitive information. Has it really 'gotten' bad or just been that way all along? I don't know how the security was where you went to college, but at my school, people's SSN's were posted up on grading sheets for all to see. The names were missing, but still, you could easily get them just by watching people check their grades. --Adam
Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:49:50PM -0400, Harold A. Mackey wrote: I spent many happy years on Comcast, during which time they offered $25 dollar specials every so often, but it always creeped back up to $40. Bellsouth adsl seems to be no different in quality and service. I think they are all quite aware of the 'going price', and do not intend to kill that goose, at least not down here. Comcast is hit or miss. My experience with them in Fremont CA was good, but Union City was a nightmare, the service was down all the time. Their support is among the worst I've ever experienced. I switched to a regional DSL provider (Sonic.net) and have never looked back. --Adam
Re: Internet2
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote: Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is. If your ISP has congested links you should complain and switch if not fixed promptly. WTF.. She asked a simple question and five people are slamming her for no apparent reason. --Adam
Re: AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DNS ?
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:53:15PM -0500, Adam Kujawski wrote: If the customer has a dozen name servers they want you to allocate reverse DNS for, it could become unwieldy, but technically, is there anything wrong with this setup? I believe that this setup could be susceptible to the 'gluelessness' problem described at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html. At the very least it takes a few more lookups to find the right answer. --Adam
Re: AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DNS ?
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:04:54PM -0800, Crist Clark wrote: $ dig 3.2.1.in-addr.arpa soa $ dig 42.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa soa This email contains approximately the same information as Randy's did. Yes, the SOA's will be different. That is what is intended. The nameserver that is authoritative for 3.2.1.in-addr.arpa is delegating 42.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa to 5.6.7.86. Were you trying to make some other point or just showcasing your 'dig' skills? --Adam
Re: AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DNS ?
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:59:59PM -0800, Crist Clark wrote: $ORIGIN 168.50.204.in-addr.arpa. $GENERATE 0-15 $ NS a.ns.$ $GENERATE 0-15 a.ns.$ A 204.50.168.2 Is any harder than, $ORIGIN 168.50.204.in-addr.arpa. $GENERATE 0-15 CNAME $.0/28 0/28NS ns.mydomain.org. That's the whole point. They are equivalent, but the former doesn't force you to invent your own naming scheme or use CNAMES (if using A records in in-addr.arpa domains is distasteful, then imho using CNAMES is even more distasteful, not to mention RR's containing the / character). --Adam
Re: AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DNS ?
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:38:10AM -0800, Pete Ehlke wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:28:19AM -0500, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: ps - there's of course the rather umm... interesting content below ;) http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/avoid-rfc-2317-delegation.html Which is totally, completely wrong and causes, in both cases, servers to leak name space (which causes cache poisoning) and, in once case, servers to potentially be marked as lame. The man is flat out wrong. Don't follow his advice. How can delegating in-addr.arpa on a per-ip basis be any different or worse than delegating it using an rfc2317 scheme? --Adam
Re: The internet is slow
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:58:37AM -0700, Rick Ernst wrote: Gah.. I hate these kind of vague problems. Here's a helpful script: http://cgi.cs.wisc.edu/scripts/ballard/bofhserver.pl --Adam
Re: An A record is an MX record and is a missing MX....
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:25:35PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: It isn't exactly completely RFC compliant, but, it is only a -=Request=-, eh ? It is in fact required that an MTA fall back to the A record for a domain if an MX record does not exist. See RFC 2821, Section 5, Address Resolution and Mail Handling. Obviously some admins I have encountered are starting to host mailservers for sub-domains and domains without MX entries on their DNS zone records. Relying on the A record alone. Lemmings make a mad dash towards a cliff, every so often, en masse This is a fallacy perpetrated by Disney. http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm --Adam
Re: An A record is an MX record and is a missing MX....
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 04:04:54PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: Agreed, but nothing -requires- an MTA Agent have an MX record, in the first place it is just a best CBP. Not having one means you don't comply with ALL the RFC, but you are still RFC compliant. Not the same thing, FWIW. Yes, my point was that hosts that insist on an MX record being present are not RFC-compliant. Lemmings make a mad dash towards a cliff, every so often, en masse This is a fallacy perpetrated by Disney. No, that they are committing suicide is a fallacy. That they jump up and begin migrating to lower population density regions is fact... and they just happen to suicide in the process. Both are fallacies. They neither commit suicide nor jump off cliffs en masse. But as you demonstrated in the rest of your post, this is getting off topic... --Adam
Re: .org whois
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:40:00PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist. I noticed this a few days ago -- I thought it was because the domain in question was being transferred, but after reading your post it seems it was much more than that. The root servers aren't providing referrals to the gtld-servers for .org anymore.. Instead they're referring to here: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: org. 172800IN NS A7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS L7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS G7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS F7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS M5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS J5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS I5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS C5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800IN NS E5.NSTLD.COM. Anyone know anything about this? I can't find anything on ICANN's web site regarding a switch. --Adam
Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:50:52PM -0500, John Palmer wrote: There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages. If you want to see them, then use one of those MUA's, or get MS to fix its mailers. I suppose the reason that outlook doesn't support PGP attachments isn't because MS is promoting a different standard? So much for interoperability. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:16:25PM -0400, Jason Lewis wrote: I can't find info on network solutions website for changing info for my NIC handle? What is the deal? I figured I would send an empty messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get some info, but the email it send back is full of dead links. For the life of me, I can't find and info on where all the templates are. Anyone still using the templates? They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). The URL for the forms is https://www.netsol.com/en_US/makechanges/forms.html, but I don't know how you get to that anymore thru the menu system. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
Re: OT: Changing NIC handle info
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 02:17:59AM +0200, Paul Wouters wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2002, Adam McKenna wrote: They've begun making the templates harder and harder to find. I don't know if this is on purpose (although I suspect it is). Ofcourse it is. Only ask the admin-c (clueless client) for approval to transfer (not the tech-c, whose email address actually works and who is in fact moving the domain) and you're almost guaranteed that the transfer request will fail to deliver. If it does deliver, make it hard by needing a reply within 96 hours. Also, losing a few emails, like a modify for the admin-c by the tech-c if the expire date of the domain is only a week away works wonders too. It's nice not having to deal with that BS anymore. All of my domains are in OpenSRS, and for the ones that aren't I let the customers manage themselves. It usually doesn't take much convincing to get them to switch, especially at a savings of $27 per year. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
