Re: FBI tells the public to call their ISP for help
No I've never heard of that except, possibly, from non-clued phone monkeys. It's easy to get past them to more clued folks, though... Stop it! You're making my sides hurt. --lyndon Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Re: Copper thefts in california
In addition to the traditional backhoe threat, as the price of copper increased so has the threat of people stealing telephone trunk cables containing copper wire. Someone fried themselves a couple of months ago in a Vancouver suburb, trying to steal a chunk of (live) power cable. http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/story.html?id=23300fcd-ae18-48dc-bef1-43935f702213k=99395 --lyndon
Re: Silicon-germanium routers?
On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Tony Li wrote: The breakthrough that we're looking for is a high speed, high density, low power transistor that can be commercially scaled with good yield. Not there quite yet. In comparison to early-80s ECL, how do you think the scaling curve might match? I haven't found much material yet that shows any realistic projections for speed and yield ramp up for the new stuff. --lyndon
RE: Internet privacy
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 1:22 PM -0700 Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because you don't need a domain name to live on the Ineternet. If you choose to have a domain name, then, it's akin to hanging out your own shingle. If you hang out a shingle, you have an obligation to provide a certain amount of contact information as a matter of public record. As a company director and officer I do not have to make my home address and telephone number available. I don't even have to make the company's office address or telephone number public. But I do have to provide an office of record where the company (or its officers and directors) can be served legal notice. Typically this is the address of the company's lawyer. There's no reason why domain registrations should be any different. I can think of many good reasons for someone not wanting their home address and telephone number listed in the domain contact info. (For starters, think spousal abuse. Your policy would prevent a woman hiding from an abusive spouse from registering a .name domain.) HOWEVER, there does need to be *some* form of valid contact information provided. Registrars might want to consider offering a point-of-contact intermediary service as a value added product. --lyndon
If Verisign *really* wants to help ...
The logical follow-on to IP-based Sitefinder is SS7-based Phonefinder. I propose we redirect all not in service telephone numbers to Verisign's CEOs direct telephone number. --lyndon NT as a file server is faster than a dead bat carrying Post-It notes underwater. But not by much.
Re: Bye Snubby, hello Mail Rejector
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, David B Harris wrote: Worth noting that they don't accept mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250-SIZE 1024 250-ETRN Those two capabilities are bogus as well. --lyndon Always carry a short length of fibre-optic cable. If you get lost then you can drop it on the ground, wait 10 minutes, and ask the backhoe operator how to get back to civilization. -- Alan Frame
Re: (Slightly OT) Bandwidth in Belize
Generally, you get paved roads and working telco service BEFORE you can buy T1's.. And isn't BTL the legislated monopoly carrier? (Although I heard rumours that this was supposed to change at some point ...) I suspect satellite is your only option. --lyndon
Re: Network Solutions and Broken E-mail Addresses
--On Friday, August 8, 2003 5:56 PM -0700 Jeremy T. Bouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately I'd have to say NetSol is not alone on this as a vast majority of the sites I've had to enter an email address will not accept a [EMAIL PROTECTED] format... I find it to be quite annoying that I can use the format as it helps with filtering of email and is completely valid according to the current RFCs wrt mail. John Klensin has an internet-draft out that addresses this issue. See section 3 of draft-klensin-name-filters-02.txt. I don't know if this will be any more useful than RFC 2822 when it comes to bashing the clueless over the head, but every bit helps, I guess. I find that when I complain about this sort of thing I have about a 20% success rate in getting the problem fixed. Something I've found to be helpful is to offer the site an ERE I wrote that does (mostly correct) validation of RFC 2822 addresses. If the site is running UNIX they'll usually incorporate the ERE into their validation software. --lyndon
Re: rfc1918 ignorant
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Dave Temkin wrote: Except you're making assumptions as to how that router is used. If it's being used for purely transit then your third paragraph doesn't apply at all. The traffic is not originating or terminating there, it is merely passing through. When the router needs to send an ICMP packet back to the source it becomes an originator. --lyndon
Re: rfc1918 ignorant
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 11:50 AM, Dave Temkin wrote: Needs is a tough call. Plenty of networks block ICMP at the border and could very well be using 1918 addressing in between and you'd have no idea. True enough, but my view of networks that blindly block all ICMP is about the same as those that misuse 1918 addresses. And if they're blocking ICMP specifically to hide their misuse of 1918, well ... There are direct costs associated with dealing with networks that are configured as described above. If you can't see inside to diagnose problems, you can't call horsepucky when their support people start feeding you a line. The cost of downtime and local support staff quickly adds up. I've cancelled contracts in the past for this very reason. --lyndon
Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org)
So what's so bad about forwarding all tcp/25 traffic over that relay and letting that relay decide if the MAIL FROM: is allowed to be relayed? Because I want to send mail through my own SMTP server that speaks STARTTLS and uses certificates that are under my control. Maybe I don't want my email sitting around in your MTA queue for your sysadmins to read. Or maybe you just don't have a clue about how to configure and run an MTA, therefore any mail I send through your enforced gateway gets silently black-holed. And if a client wants to mail from another domain which isn't relayed by it's upstream ISP, he/she could ask it's ISP to do so. Yes this will add an administrative hassle, but doesn't spam imply that also? Do you *honestly* believe what you wrote above? Do you have any experience trying to actually get these sort of changes made? Can you provide statistically valid numbers showing this is a realistic solution in the real world? (Frankly, this proposal is so absurd I have to wonder if you've even dealt with *an* ISP ...) The Internet is a peer-to-peer network, whether you like it or not. --lyndon Lizzie Borden took an axe, And plunged it deep into the VAX; Don't you envy people who Do all the things YOU want to do?
Does anyone still offer DVMRP tunnels?
Is there anyone out there still providing DVMRP multicast tunnels? Our network provider simply isn't interested in providing native multicast. If anyone close to Group Telecom (sorry, I don't have their AS handy at the moment) would be willing to establish a tunnel with us, please contact me directly. Thanks. --lyndon
Re: news-peering
} I'm trolling for newspeers, if there is anyone out there still using } NNTP.. http://www.usenet-se.net/peering/ A useless list based on my experience (zero responses to requests to twelve different sites). --lyndon
