Re: SORBS Contact
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 02:13, Derek J. Balling wrote: > > > > Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250 > > OK' to > > the '.' after the DATA. You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that, > > and you > > haven't taken custody of that data... > > This is ridiculous (not your argument, Valdis, but the whole thread > in general). Valdis's is correct, before the DATA is akin to "hello anybody home" and then "does jack live there" if I say yes he does, it does not mean you can come in just because jack lives there > This is no different from me authorizing Mail Boxes Etc to be my > proxy for UPS packages, and them being allowed to simply discard It is very different because you hold a physical package or something for someone you are paid by somebody to do it, unless you operate a charity -- Regards, Noel Butler System Administrator Internet Services L.C.P No. 251002 http://counter.li.org --- This Email and any attachments may contain legally privileged information and remains confidential. You may not reveal any of the contents to anyone without the authors express authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender of this error and delete immediately. ---
RE: SORBS Contact
Last time I saw someone so strenously crying that 'thou must accept mail' and trying so hard to justify why we should accept it was a low life toss pot scum sucking spammer, ooops I mean direct marketer, ahh stuf fit, both the same thing ...not implying anything here but if the shoe fits On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 06:46, David Schwartz wrote: > [combined responses] > > > You do realize that when we talk about "sending" data we are using > > language in a very loose way, right? Data isn't actually sent. When I > > "send" a packet of data, I still retain that data. If you lose it you > > have only lost your copy of it, not mine. > > The packet includes its origin, destination, next hop, and like > information. If the copy were identical to the original in all respects, it > would not be a copy. There must be some distinction between the two, and it > is that distinction that makes the "copy" useful. (That's why you made it.) > > > Are you one of those people that makes an extra photcopy when you have > > to fax one to someone? > > Why fax something to someone at all then? If the fax really is the same > as > the original, why bother faxing? Obviously, there is a difference between > the two copies, and the value of the duplicate is in that difference. > > The fact that the information can change physical form doesn't mean it > isn't a coherent object. For example, my car may exchange electrons with > your sidewalk, but that doesn't make it any less my car. The value of the > car is not in which particular electrons it has (which can change) but in > their arrangement and utility (which does not). > > If I have some information that I want to get to a particular place, > and I > make a copy and dispatch it toward its destination, that copy with its > destination information behaves just like my car does. It changes on the > way, but it does not ever become any less my car (or the ultimate > recipient's car) regardless of whose roads it travels over. > > > > Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can > > > shoot people who > > > > It is illegal to shoot people whether they enter your mall or not. > > Precisely. Your obligation not to destroy someone else's data is a basic > tort obligation that applies to how you must treat other people's property, > even if it happens to be on "your network". > > > > The same would be the case if I used FedEx to return > > > something of yours to > > > you. If they destroyed your property, you would have a claim > > > against them > > > even though you didn't pay them for anything. > > > IANAL but I am pretty sure that my claim would be against you, not > > FedEx. You would have to counter claim against FedEx because you made > > the contract with them. > > You could make a claim against me and I could counter claim against > FedEx. > But you could also claim against FedEx directly. They destroyed your > property. > > >Whatever you're smoking, you've really gotta share some with the rest of > >us. :P I guarantee you that there is not a single packet that I will route > >which is neither from nor to someone I have a contract with. If you want > >to give away free service to people without contracts that is your right, > >but I sure as hell don't have to. > > Transit networks route many packets that are neither from nor to anyone > they have a contract with. They pass the traffic from aggregators to > aggregators. This is the same as a person who walks from store to store in a > mall even though he has no contract with the stores, the stores have > contracts with the mall. > > >Packets are not property, there is no intrinsic value in returning them to > >sender. Plus I guarantee you if you drop off a package with Fedex and > >don't pay for it (thus entering into a contract with them for services), > >they will eventually throw it in the trash rather than deliver it. > > Packets are property. There is no value in returning them to sender but > there is value in delivering them to the recipient. If the lack of return > value is evidence against property, why is the presence of delivery value > not evidence for? > > I don't deny that you can drop a packet on the floor if nobody paid you > to > carry it and you did nothing to solicit its presence on your network. That > is not the same as the case where somebody paid you to carry the packet, but > the person who paid you is not the owner of the packet but merely someone > similarly contracted by the owner. > > >This is no different from me authorizing Mail Boxes Etc to be my > >proxy for UPS packages, and them being allowed to simply discard > >anything from, say, an ex-wife. My ex-wife has no claim, in this > >hypothetical, against MBE for tossing my package in the trash, > >because they're acting as my agent. > > You are quite correct *if* they are the agent for the intended > recipient. > In the general case, a trans
Re: SORBS Contact
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 13:29, Robert Bonomi wrote: > If you want 'reliable' delivery, you _pay_ the recieving system (and the > intermediaries) for that service. Your lack of patience with something > other people _give_ you the free use of is, quite simply, an inexcusable > display of arrogance and presumption. here here! very well said entire post, I have left only this para tho, because my second comment, and thats my suggestion is they can pay for a co-located machine that they can go out and get a domain for and run their own mail server on and get as much spam and virus's they want :) that of course will never interfere with 99. reptv % of customers *dont* want. -- Regards, Noel Butler System Administrator Internet Services L.C.P No. 251002 http://counter.li.org --- This Email and any attachments may contain legally privileged information and remains confidential. You may not reveal any of the contents to anyone without the authors express authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender of this error and delete immediately. ---
Re: SORBS Contact
There is one very key point to make in this, use of *any* RBL is up to individual networks, no one makes anyone use them, and those that do must know and accept all risks involved when dealing with DUL's, SORBS operates a zone 'just for vernom' as well, just like spamcop and njabl and others, but if a network like many I can name want to use the full coverage , that is up to us, we know the risks and believe it does more good, EVERYTHING will have collateral damage and we know and accept that. On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 09:59, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > > > Actually that's debatable - the SORBS DUHL is about IPs assigned to > hosts/people/machines dynamically. We do not list addresses where the > ISP have sent the list explictitly saying 'these are static hosts, but > they are not allowed to send mail' - similarly we do list hosts in the > DUHL where the ISP has said 'these are dynamic but we allow them to send > mail' - it's about the people using the SORBS DUHL for their purposes, > not for helping ISPs getting around the issue of whether to use SORBS as > a replacement to port 25 blocking. > > Regards, > > Mat
Re: SORBS Contact
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > We were hit by the requirement to include the word "static" in our DNS > names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say "this /17 is > only static IPs, one customer, one IP, no dhcp or other dynamics at all), > we actually had to change all PTR records to this arbitrary "standard". > > Took several weeks to get delisted even after that. We've had our moments with SORBS, Matthew is a very approachable person. Things get sorted out pretty quickly, generally within a few days, Matthew also has others who help him and one of them is an obnoxious . I do agree though, the requirment to have X TTL and 'static' or non 'dsl' 'dial' in DNS is a bit too far, I understand this is for automation, its the only part of SORBS i disagree with, that said we still use them, as do many large carriers ion this country, because the use of RBL's is for one reason, to STOP the wanker, and SORBS along with spamcop and spamhaus and njabl go a very long way to prevent peoples privacy being invaded by those vernom
Re: SORBS Contact
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 07:39, Aaron Glenn wrote: > That (blocking SMTP) could become illegal is some proposed "net > neutrality" legislation is passed. > hahaha try enforcing that in other countries also, most networks are private (not state run) therefore we have the right to say yes/no what data enters our own network, because unless unless a contract (payment) exists for the senders ISP to receivers ISP to accept data off them, the senders ISP can be told to go to hell :) > >
Fwd: [apops] APNIC debogon project]
Hi All, As I recall the no end of problems many of us had when APNIC issued 124/7, I'll get in early and ask that you please be advised of the following and make any required changes to your core equipment. Thanks.. -Forwarded Message- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: APNIC debogon project Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:32:10 +1000 Dear colleagues In January 2006, APNIC received the following IPv4 address ranges from IANA: - 121/8 - 122/8 - 123/8 APNIC has started making allocations from these address ranges. To ensure these ranges are not being accidentally filtered, selected prefixes from each /8 have been announced using AS12654. A reachability test can be done on each test prefix. A list of "pingable" hosts and a daily visibility report for each prefix is available here: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html If you need further assistance or have any concerns, please feel free to contact us at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Bogon Filters Removal REQ, 124/7, 126/8
Dear colleagues, This is a resend of APNIC message issued Feb this year, many of you have not removed the filters creating problems for many networks in Australia and other APNIC covered countries, as the below mentioned 'near future' has been well underway for some couple of months. It would be appreciated if you could act on this notice at your very earliest convenience if you suspect you are a guilty party :) Thanks in advance. N Subject: [APNIC Members] [Apnic-announce] APNIC new IPv4 addresses Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:28:07 +1000 (EST) Dear colleagues APNIC received IPv4 address blocks 124/7 and 126/8 from IANA in January 2005 and will be making allocations from these ranges in the near future. This announcement is being made for the information of the Internet community so that network configurations such as routing filters may be updated as appropriate. For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html
Re: blocking unallocated subnets
Hi Rob, On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 06:14, Rob Thomas wrote: > You could Zebra peer with the Bogon route-servers and accept > these prefixes as null routes. I've used null routes on servers > frequently, but I've not tried the combination before. Take it > with a grain of salt. :) > This works fine if you can remember to keep your bogon filters current, which we and other networks in oz have found recently many networks in fact do not. Which reminds me, if anyone has 125.0.0.0/8 null routed, shame on you :) It was brought into life many months ago by APNIC. Cheers
Re: Cisco 7513 & Bandwidth Points
On-List replies perhaps may be usefull.. Or could you post a summary of your findings? Regards, Noel Montales Claydon, Tom said: > > Hello, > > We are moving from a Cisco 7206 to a 7513, and I was wondering if we > will be limited by bandwidth points on the 7513 (as we are with the > 7206). From the sparse documentation I've found so far, it doesn't > appear that this limitation exists in the 7513, correct? > > Off-list replies are welcomed. >
Re: Open Source BGP Route Optimization?
Yes, I saw those.. But I'm looking for something that actually can ping a set of hosts throughout the Internet and manipulate BGP accordingly. I realize that InternNAP and RouteScience use fixed agents throughout the Internet to measure these things, but I think a simple ping would do. I can't be the only one tired of manually manipulating BGP. I can't be the only one that can't afford something commercially to do this! -Noel - Original Message - From: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:38 AM Subject: Re: Open Source BGP Route Optimization? > > > Does anybody happen to know of any open source project working on a BGP > > route optimizer like what Route Science or Internap or the likes have > > commercially? > > five minutes in google turned up the following: > > http://www.inlab.de/balance.html (this is a tcp proxy, not a bgp thing) > http://www.stanford.edu/~schemers/docs/lbnamed/lbnamed.html (Stupid DNS Tricks) > http://www.backhand.org/mod_backhand/ (an apache module for redirection) > http://www.supersparrow.org/ (uses but doesn't generate bgp information) > http://www.bgpdns.org/ (Stupid DNS Tricks again, but based on bgp data) > > probably a whole hour spent on such research would turn up even more. > -- > Paul Vixie >
Open Source BGP Route Optimization?
Hello! Does anybody happen to know of any open source project working on a BGP route optimizer like what Route Science or Internap or the likes have commercially? Just sounds like the sort of thing somebody would have though of, but I've never seen any mention of it.. Regards, Noel Montales Waveform Technology LLC
