Re: AOL scomp
On Feb 24, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Edward B. Dreger wrote: Can AOL's "this is spam" feedback loop be abused with a single person responding to a single message many, many times? Inquiring minds want to know. No it can't be abused [by the average AOL user] - when you click the "Report Spam" button the message disappears from your mailbox. I tested this from within AOL version 10.3 for Mac OS X. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Re: Verizon wins MCI
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how
large
Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI,
MFS,
WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
The articles I have read indicate that Verizon was not the best
offer. Qwest bid $7B. But MCI wanted to be bought by someone who was
financially stable and Qwest has a huge debt load which the purchase of
MCI would only increase. They were also looking for a better known
purchaser and Qwest is not as familiar to the public as Verizon ("Can
you here me, now?")
To me, it sounds like MCI determined that it could not succeed on its
own
and that "forced" the sale and MCI seemed to want Verizon to buy them
from the start because of the long-term value to shareholders and bond
holders, the REAL owners of the company.
Add to that that Verizon also agreed to assume $4B in MCI debts and the
purchase price doesn't look so low anymore. Also, despite all the news
of Qwest's offer, according to what I read Verizon has been in talks
with MCI for 2 years now, so they probably had a much more detailed
agreement ironed out to MCI's liking.
--
Jeff Wheeler
Postmaster, Network Admin
US Institute of Peace
Re: Symantec AV may execute viruses
Oh, wow, I see how I missed that - I had already scrolled half way down
the page and was looking at the Consumer Products section under
"Non-Vulnerable Products"... woops :)
Looking at it more closely, they are saying the same thing twice:
Affected Product - only affected prior to build x.y.z
and then
Non-Vulnerable Product - only non-vulnerable starting with build x.y.z
--
Jeff Wheeler
Postmaster, Network Admin
US Institute of Peace
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Brance Amussen :)_S wrote:
Here are the listed Mac products, according to the website
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html
Consumer products section..
Symantec Norton Antivirus 2004 for Macintosh
Symantec Norton Internet Security 2004 for Macintosh
Symantec Norton System Works 2004 for Macintosh
Symantec Norton Antivirus 9.0 for Macintosh
Symantec Norton Internet Security for Macintosh 3.0
Symantec Norton System Works for Macintosh 3.0
Also, You can configure in the Systems Center Console for the corporate
edition (server) to download product updates as well..
Now if I can only figure out these version numbers..
Brance :)_S
Brance Amussen
Network/Systems Admin
Zanvyl Krieger Mind/Brain Institute
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.6167
brance{AT}jhu.edu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jeff
Wheeler
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:18 PM
To: Colin Johnston
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Symantec AV may execute viruses
I would actually expect LiveUpdate for the home versions to get the
update
automatically. The corporate edition however does not update the
software
via LiveUpdate - they figure IT departments would rather control when
the
software gets updated themselves, but unfortunately in most companies
that
probably means almost never :\
Also, it doesn't appear that this issue effects the Mac software (at
least,
I didn't see the Mac products in the Symantec vulnerability list), only
Windows products.
--
Jeff Wheeler
Postmaster, Network Admin
US Institute of Peace
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Colin Johnston wrote:
Any ideas why Symantec have not released the updated code to
LiveUpdate for Mac and LiveUpdate for PC ??
Colin Johnston
TTL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Symantec AV may execute viruses
I would actually expect LiveUpdate for the home versions to get the update automatically. The corporate edition however does not update the software via LiveUpdate - they figure IT departments would rather control when the software gets updated themselves, but unfortunately in most companies that probably means almost never :\ Also, it doesn't appear that this issue effects the Mac software (at least, I didn't see the Mac products in the Symantec vulnerability list), only Windows products. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Colin Johnston wrote: Any ideas why Symantec have not released the updated code to LiveUpdate for Mac and LiveUpdate for PC ?? Colin Johnston TTL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Symantec AV may execute viruses
Sorry for not including this before, here is Symantec's statement: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Feb 10, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: apparently a serious vulnerability that needs to be patched immediately - affects Symantec firewalls, anti-spam, retail, and enterprise products. from Slashdot... http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/02/10/1327220.shtml?tid=172&tid=128 original article from ZDNet... http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,261744,39180674,00.htm Not sure if this is technically 'operational' but I'm sure it affects most of the people on this list. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Symantec AV may execute viruses
apparently a serious vulnerability that needs to be patched immediately - affects Symantec firewalls, anti-spam, retail, and enterprise products. from Slashdot... http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/02/10/1327220.shtml?tid=172&tid=128 original article from ZDNet... http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,261744,39180674,00.htm Not sure if this is technically 'operational' but I'm sure it affects most of the people on this list. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Re: NYTimes: Purloined Domain Name Is an Unsolved Mystery
good suggestions, and for those who use Firefox for web browsing, check out this extension for auto-use of BugMeNot: http://extensions.roachfiend.com/index.php#bugmenot Off-topic comment: what's rude is breaking the flow of a discussion (note I re-arranged your text so that the flow makes sense, eve if it doesn't meet your ideal). If someone top-posts, then you should follow up in-kind. Going back and forth from one to the other makes for a very difficult read. I personally prefer top-posting - when viewing emails from my Treo, for example, the text on top shows up first and does not require me to scroll down - and if I've already read the original, why would I want to re-read it when viewing the reply anyway? - Jeff On Jan 18, 2005, at 11:34 AM, David Vincent wrote: rude? whatever. maybe he should have included a "free registration may be required" disclaimer. maybe you should check out BugMeNot. http://www.bugmenot.com/ what's rude is top-posting. :) -d John Palmer wrote: Please do not post links to sites that require registration. Some people dont want to let marketers have their information and its rude to send links that dont work anonymously. - Original Message - From: "Hank Nussbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:33 Subject: NYTimes: Purloined Domain Name Is an Unsolved Mystery http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/technology/18domain.html -Hank
Is there an email admin from RR.COM out there?
Not sure how applicable to NANOG this is, but the below thread has started on another list that I am on, and I thought someone listening here from RR.COM might be able to help. If you think you can assist or at least want to find out more about these issues, please contact me off list and I'll get you in touch with those effected. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace Begin forwarded message: From: Mitchell Kahn Date: October 8, 2004 3:06:22 PM EDT To: "CommuniGate Pro Discussions" Subject: Re: blocked for too many messages? It sounds as if your difficulties are actually worse than mine. Thanks for letting me know that I am in good company. Mitch On Oct 8, 2004, at 11:44 AM, eLists wrote: Hello, I too have had my emails to any rr.com server rejected as well. I also checked my IP address at this senderbase page and funny how a ranking of 10 equates to all internet email, and with my server sending out about 2000 emails a day, I have a rating of 2.3? Seems something is rather messed up with both senderbase and rr (not surprising that rr is messed up). In the past few days, my server has only attempted to send about 20 emails to rr.com servers. Yet all of mine are also blocked. Like you, my IP is not in any lists. Mitchell Kahn wrote: One of our clients received the following messaged when her e-mail was bounced: Failed to deliver to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' SMTP module(domain hawaii.rr.com) reports: host orngca-01.mgw.rr.com says: 452 Too many recipients received this hour. Please see our rate limit policy at http://security.rr.com/spam.htm#ratelimit I went to the page listed to try to understand why her e-mail was rejected but this is incongruent with the facts as I understand them. I checked our logs and there was only one attempt in the last two days to send mail to this domain. My server does not appear on any of the spam lists that they show (see below), we have a static IP address on the server, and we don't have any open relays. This Road Runner process appears to render e-mail useless as a communication tool if this is the future of spam filtering. I contacted the ISP that bounced the mail but I have not had a response. (I wonder if my contact mail was bounced.) Is anyone else familiar with this experience? Does anyone know of a way around it? Thanks, Mitch_ Mitchell Kahn
Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net
I'll admit to not knowing too much about this project, but what you are describing sounds similar in part to the Network Admission Control that Cisco is pushing - an automated way of ensuring user machines are protected before being admitted on to the network. Here is a link to their site on the subject: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns466/ networking_solutions_white_paper0900aecd800fdd66.shtml - Jeff On Sep 21, 2004, at 6:00 PM, james edwards wrote: The port 25 blocking seemed like a real good idea. -M I disagree. Port blocking does not change user behavior & it is user behavior that is causing this problem. Blocking just hides it. I used to believe in port blocking as the solution to many user problems but now I have 3 and 4 page ACL's on my border routers. This does not scale. Yes, I could push this out via radius to the NAS but again this does not solve the problem. I feel blocking just pushes us closer to ports loosing their uniqueness, as we have seen with PTP filesharing. The solution I am working toward is quickly identifying user infections. We are almost there. I collect and record all traffic from the users going to dark space and am almost finished with the system that will identify who held that IP at a specific time. It is all in SQL so that is easy. We already have a system in place where users, after multiple virus problems, must obtain protection software prior to being re-enabled. Ramping up the amount of proof we have at hand will allow us to enforce our existing AUP. The key to changing a behavior is to create consequences to this behavior. I have noticed we never have problems getting a user to get virus/firewall software after they pay to have their box disinfected. Hit the users first with e-mails, then phone contact, ending with being shut off should create the consequences needed to change their behavior. james
world phones
I know this topic has already passed, but this article describes one other possible avenue for the only-GSM-for-me crowd that may open a couple additional providers to your list of options http://news.com.com/The+world+in+your+palm/2100-1039_3-5364524.html? tag=nefd.top -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Re: Graphical displays of latency/packet loss for Top Internet backbones
For Qwest try this site: http://stat.qwest.net/ -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Sep 14, 2004, at 9:34 AM, Don Lundquist wrote: Does anyone have a list of a few sites on the Internet which display graphical and/or statistical information on packet loss and latency for major Internet providers? Specifically I am looking for comparisons for major providers such as AT&T/MCI/Qwest/Level3/Savvis etc... Thanks in advance, Don Lundquist Peak 10, Inc.
Sender-ID denied by IETF?
Top story on Slashdot: http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/13/1317238.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 Zocalo writes "The MARID working group at the IETF responsible for deciding on which extensions to SMTP will be used to try and prevent spoofing of the sender has made their decision. At issue was whether Microsoft's patent encumbered Sender-ID would be eligable for inclusion in an Internet standard. An initial analysis of the text of their decision, available here with a brief analysis, would suggest not. Unless Microsoft is going to make any dramatic concessions out of desperation, that pretty much clears the way for Meng Wong's Classic SPF to become the standard and hopefully make Joe-Jobs at thing of the past." -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
Not that I'm trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe you meant suprnova.org which is a BitTorrent site (supernova.org is not a bittorrent site). Check out this link for a list of other BitTorrent sites and applications: http://kevinrose.typepad.com/kr/2004/07/darktip_the_bes.html -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Sep 1, 2004, at 4:33 AM, David A. Ulevitch wrote: I have a solution, but it's expensive. A url for the whole 266MB download (and not the smaller selective download that Windows Update would provide). If anyone's that desperate, email me. I only used it after waiting a week with the "Automatic Updates" switched on, and nothing arriving. Microsoft isn't hiding the link: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b076b-aaa9-443d-84f0 -73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe linked from: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/ winxpsp2.mspx (well, click "get the service pack" and then "download") Just because sp2torrent.com is down doesn't mean the rest of the torrent world is. Supernova.org seems to have some links to an SP2 torrent or two. as usual, ymmv, davidu David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
Re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
p2p is different due to its decentralization. in other words, what once required a server to do can now be done by anyone sitting in front of their home computer. it in a way revitalized the idea of every computer on the 'net being it's own host - capable of serving up whatever the user wishes to whomever wishes to view it. the problem is that while in the 'real world' this wasn't a big issue (a user giving away copies of the latest CD they bought from their front porch wasn't likely able to distribute it to too many people, and it cost them money to do it) on the 'net it is an issue (user has no noticeable costs, and the distribution is world-wide). the various industries in question have realized that controlling distribution is impossible, the only thing they can control is the content itself (thus the various copy protection mechanisms, and legislation to implement the copy-protect flag) except that breaks fair use rights of the consumer. I hate to say it, but the *AA may need to look to Microsoft's Windows/Office activation scheme for guidance - while a bit of a nuisance, it actually allows customers to make fair use of their software while protecting MS from some of the piracy issues. Not that I have any idea of MS's software activation can translate in to protection of CDs and DVDs and whatnot, but it's something to think about (it's certainly better than the current mechanisms: copy once and never again, or copy only digital files that are of a degraded quality, or only playable on certain players to prevent copying via a computer, among I'm sure many others). -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 30, 2004, at 5:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Fred Baker wrote: This kind of a "you're different and therefore wrong" mismatch has made complete hash out of quite a variety of discussions concerning user experience and user requirements on the Internet. Please listen carefully when someone talks about having limited rate access. The assumptions that are obviously true in your (SP) world are completely irrelevant in theirs. If you want their opinions - and this opinion was explicitly requested - you have to respect them when they are offered, not just bash them as different from your experience. I've always wondered what really makes P2P different from anything else on the Internet? From the service provider's point of view, users accessing CNN.COM is a peer-to-peer activity between the user and CNN. From the service provider's point of view, Microsoft and Akamai are peer-to-peer activities. Freedom of the press belongs to those that can afford to buy a press.
Re: VeriSign's antitrust suit against ICANN dismissed
Not exactly, as apparently they can take it back to the state courts. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 27, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Hosman, Ross wrote: One stupid lawsuit from Verisign down...one more stupid lawsuit from SCO to go -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henry Linneweh Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: VeriSign's antitrust suit against ICANN dismissed http://news.com.com/ VeriSign%27s+antitrust+suit+against+ICANN+dismissed/2100 -1030_3-5326136.html?tag=nefd.top
Re: Oct. NANOG - hotel? At the two month marker now.
If you are looking at hotels in the Herndon/Reston area that are not walking distance to the Town Center then bus service might be a cheap alternative to rentals and cabs. The primary bus system in the Reston area is the Fairfax Connector (particularly the RIBS buses I think). Here is a link to the schedules and maps: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/connector/schedulesmaps.htm Also check the Metro Ride Guide, as I believe it will also show Fairfax Connector routes to your destination if available, and it's simple - enter start address and destination address and it will figure out the rest: http://rideguide.wmata.com/ -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Marc Sachs wrote: Two other hotels that are worth checking: Comfort Inn (~$100 per night, Internet rate) http://www6.choicehotels.com/ires/en-us/html/HotelInfo? sid=nUACM.28A3XlJ Pg.6&hotel=VA405 Holiday Inn Express (~130 per night, Internet rate) http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hd/wasex?irs=null Neither is really "walking distance" from Reston Town Center but if you get double occupancy with a friend and split a cab or rental car it's much cheaper than the Hyatt. Marc . __ __ Marcus H. Sachs, P.E. KJ4WA : [EMAIL PROTECTED] |(__ /Director, SANS Internet Storm Center :isc.sans.org | __)\__ Washington D.C. USA(EDT, GMT-4) : +1 703 707 9293
Need a Contact From DotEarth.com / DOMAIN REGISTRATION SERVICES
Anyone here have contact information for DotEarth.com (aka: Domain Registration Services)? Other than the standard information on their website and whois data of course. Please reply off-list.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I'm not sure if it's even worth responding to you, but here I go anyway All mail servers scan your email when you send to one of their users. Mine scanned your below message several times in a row - first to look for certain headers that I don't want coming through (like that subject prefix that adult-oriented sites are required to use, for example), then again to look words in the body that I don't want to come through (for various things, from links to sites that could harm my users, to signatures of specific viruses, to stuff about mortgages that nobody should be using their work email to take care of), then again to see if the message was addressed to the postmaster (at which point all other rules are stopped and the message goes straight to the postmaster account), then again to check for attachments and add headers for certain kinds, then again to check those headers and block certain kinds of attachments, then again to check for viruses, etc...etc...etc... Given that all of the above is standard mail procedure (maybe not at an ISP, but certainly at a corporation with specific strict usage policies, and even at an ISP many of the above are standard) I hope you can understand how pathetic your argument is. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 19, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Lou Katz wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: Joshua Brady wrote: I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com accounts already. :P Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage our clients from using this service. If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. YMMV. -Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols -- -=[L]=-
searching for high bandwidth
Thank you to everyone that responded to my low-latency bandwidth question, and please if anyone else has a suggestion along that line please do respond to my last email! I'll compile the responses I get and post to the list in a few days. Anyway, I'm emailing now to request any information on sources that would help in searching for high bandwidth (meaning T3 or similar) providers. I already know about bandwidth.com (a broadbandreports.com affiliate) and through Google found nationwidebandwidth.com, but what else is there? How do you all figure out who to contact when shopping around for additional bandwidth? I'm searching for a provider in the Washington, D.C. area by the way, and currently our fractional T3 is provided by UUNet. I will of course be contacting them, also I've already contact Cogent based on someone's suggestion yesterday or the day before. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Re: low-latency bandwidth for cheap?
Thanks. I suppose then I'm looking for good, and half and half of fast and cheap, or if not then simply good and cheap and I'll accept the lesser bandwidth. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 4, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Robert Waldner wrote: On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:25:43 EDT, Jeff Wheeler writes: I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the instability and high latency of residential cable and DSL offerings, but I love the T1 or greater bandwidth they offer. I'd like reasonable bandwidth with low latency without spending hundreds of dollars per month! RFC 1925, 7a. cheers, &rw -- -- Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go to bed. -- -> And to just stay there until the evil yellow --disk is gone again.
low-latency bandwidth for cheap?
This may be the wrong forum to ask this, and if so I apologize, please just point me in the right direction! I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the instability and high latency of residential cable and DSL offerings, but I love the T1 or greater bandwidth they offer. I'd like reasonable bandwidth with low latency without spending hundreds of dollars per month! Anybody know a good source for near-T1 low-latency bandwidth at around $100/month? I'm in the northern VA area btw. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
Invitation to join Friendster from Jeff Wheeler
Jeff Wheeler has invited you to join Jeff's personal and private community at Friendster, where you and Jeff can network with each other's friends. Friendster is an online community that connects people through networks of friends for dating or making new friends. Friendster is for people who are single, people in relationships, and anyone who wants to make new friends or help their friends meet new people. You can use Friendster to: * Meet new people to date, through your friends and their friends * Make new friends * Help your friends meet new people Once you join Friendster, you will be automatically connected to your friend Jeff, and all of Jeff's friends. (If you are already a Friendster member, you were probably invited with a different email address than you are using with Friendster.) Click below to join Friendster: http://www.friendster.com/join.jsp?invite=98645178916
