Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Foster" 

> I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
> non-subscribed addresses. I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
> considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
> exactly that.

In fact, for many years, you had to be subscribed to nanog-post in order to
post to nanog (old timers will remember when I ran afoul of that, after 
Katrina :-}); I presume it wasn't reimplemented when the lists were rehosted
several years ago.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:10:16PM +0100, bas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen  
> wrote:
> > PR 836197
> 
> That looks like a spanking new PR number to me.
> The highest PR number I found in 12.2 release notes was 82.
> Rather strange that they didn't have an earlier PR number, while the
> issue has existed for such a long time.

Oh I have a pile of PR's about a mile long, including some that I opened 
on this issue 5+ years ago. But I'm not going to harp on the complete 
absurdity of how long it has taken to finally figure this thing out, or 
the number of people who have seen this issue while they've claimed all 
along that nobody else sees it. I'm just going to focus on fixing it. 
This is the PR that they've chosen for implementing the actual fix, so 
that's what I'm going with for the sake of simplicity. :)

> I can't read PR836197 online as it is not public.
> Can you post it without liability?
> If you would be liable do not post it.. Also do _not_ email me off
> list with the PR description...

Neither can I, but the basic description of the issue is what I said 
before. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 8 January 2013 12:29, Mark Foster  wrote:
> I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
> non-subscribed addresses.  I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
> considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
> exactly that.

I think they're supposed to.  I recall my first message to this list a
couple of months ago was returned, because I was not subscribed with
the same address.  Then after getting subscribed with the address from
which I wanted to post, my message still did not get posted
automatically, and required a moderator approval prior to actually
being posted.

Has this since changed?  Or have the moderators been approving all
these LinkedIn invitations?

C.

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

[bas]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen  
wrote:
> PR 836197

That looks like a spanking new PR number to me.
The highest PR number I found in 12.2 release notes was 82.
Rather strange that they didn't have an earlier PR number, while the
issue has existed for such a long time.

> If this issue drives you as insane as it does me, I highly
> encourage you to talk to your account team about PR 836197

Done.

I can't read PR836197 online as it is not public.
Can you post it without liability?
If you would be liable do not post it.. Also do _not_ email me off
list with the PR description...

Thanks.

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:45:10PM +0100, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> What we do nowadays as some workaround, is configuring a default route 
> towards a core router on 8 x 10G before maintaining an MX box. Which 
> will be installed before BGP sessions come up, this will cause some 
> packet loss during burst hour outages but is fine during maintenance 
> hours.
> 
> I've seen cases where it took up to 30 minutes before the full table 
> was installed correctly in the PFE's.
> 
> Currently this issue/bug is holding back our Juniper deployments. As 
> far as I know Juniper created a project group for this bug, and so far 
> they were able to reproduce the issue. Looks like the issue is being 
> taken serious from now.

PR 836197

I actually have very good luck reproducing it:

http://cluepon.net/ras/rpdstall.png

The issue appears to be that when rpd is busy processing incoming BGP 
updates (such as when you turn up a large number of peers 
simultaniously), it starves the rest of the process from actually 
spending any CPU time handling/installing the route. The graph above 
shows a plot of the total BGP paths, the number of routes in the 
"pending" state, and the number of routes actually installed into the 
forwarding hardware. This is a very simplified example (nothing but IBGP 
sessions with very simple policies here, not even any EBGP neighbors), 
using the latest top of the line routing engine, so in real life the 
issue is much worse.

As you can see, while rpd is still busy receiving and processing the 
incoming updates, the number of pending routes rises and doesn't fall, 
and the number of routes installed in the PFE stays almost non-existant. 
A few routes actually manage to squeek in before all of the BGP sessions 
come up, which is why it has any at all for the period between 0 and 330 
seconds. After the router finishes receiving the BGP paths, the pending 
routes clear very quickly, and then the FIB installation process begins. 
8 minutes after turning up the BGP sessions, this router finally has a 
full table installed in hardware. The pending routes actually clear much 
quicker than this once the BGP routes stop coming int, I need to update 
this graph with a higher resolution to show it. :)

Juniper actually DOES have a fix for this issue, tweaking the scheduler 
in rpd so that the router still processes BGP routes even when it's 
spending a lot of time receiving new routes. Unfortunately they haven't 
yet decided to prioritize implementing this fix, so it's still stuck in 
development. If this issue drives you as insane as it does me, I highly 
encourage you to talk to your account team about PR 836197 and why 8-20+ 
minutes to install routes to the FIB is not acceptable to you.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

NANOG education committee is seeking instructors

[Siegel, David]

NANOG community,

As those of you who were able to attend one of the last couple of NANOG 
membership meetings know, the education committee is exploring the idea of 
adding a professional instructor-led class to the NANOG conference, not unlike 
you might find with the tutorials available at Interop or similar conferences.

If you are an experience instructor in this field or you know of an instructor, 
please email educat...@nanog.org with contact 
information.

Thank you for the assistance!

Dave

David Siegel
p: 720.888.0953
c: 520.229.7627
e: dave.sie...@level3.com

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Mark Foster]

On 09/01/13 09:21, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:52:18PM +, Alex Brooks wrote:
>> I've just had a reply saying that nanog 
>> nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That means,
>> assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
>> emails from LinkedIn or their members though LinkedIn.
> Those "processes" have been noticeably broken in the past.  (Note as
> well that even if they do work in this case, that won't stop spam to
> other nanog.org mailing lists, current or future.)  The best way to stop
> the spammers at LinkedIn is to block their domain at the MTA, and that's
> what I've recommended that the keepers of the NANOG mailing lists do.
>
>

And hope that non-mailing-lists on the same host don't need to see mail
from that MTA?

I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
non-subscribed addresses.  I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
exactly that.

Mark.

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Joshua Goldbard]

But what will we complain about now???

Thanks for doing that Alex. We'll see if it works.

Cheers,
Joshua

On Jan 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Alex Brooks 
mailto:askoorb+na...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

Hello all,

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there's no legitimate circumstance for 
mem...@linkedin.com
to be sending to nanog@nanog.org.

Couldn't the list be taught to filter these?

Owen


Since this seems to be causing everyone a lot of stress, I reached out
to LinkedIn today.  I've just had a reply saying that nanog 
nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That 
means,
assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
emails from LinkedIn or their members though LinkedIn.

If anyone from NANOG management doesn't like this, LinkedIn confirmed
that this block can be revered if required.

Hopefully that will solve the issue and let everyone go back to
running the Intertubes.

Alex

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:52:18PM +, Alex Brooks wrote:
> I've just had a reply saying that nanog 
> nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That means,
> assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
> emails from LinkedIn or their members though LinkedIn.

Those "processes" have been noticeably broken in the past.  (Note as
well that even if they do work in this case, that won't stop spam to
other nanog.org mailing lists, current or future.)  The best way to stop
the spammers at LinkedIn is to block their domain at the MTA, and that's
what I've recommended that the keepers of the NANOG mailing lists do.

---rsk

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Alex Brooks]

Hello all,

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there's no legitimate circumstance 
> for mem...@linkedin.com
> to be sending to nanog@nanog.org.
>
> Couldn't the list be taught to filter these?
>
> Owen
>

Since this seems to be causing everyone a lot of stress, I reached out
to LinkedIn today.  I've just had a reply saying that nanog 
nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That means,
assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
emails from LinkedIn or their members though LinkedIn.

If anyone from NANOG management doesn't like this, LinkedIn confirmed
that this block can be revered if required.

Hopefully that will solve the issue and let everyone go back to
running the Intertubes.

Alex

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Owen DeLong]

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there's no legitimate circumstance for 
mem...@linkedin.com
to be sending to nanog@nanog.org.

Couldn't the list be taught to filter these?

Owen

On Jan 8, 2013, at 05:21 , Jason Antman  wrote:

> If you use LinkedIn (a popular business-oriented social networking site), and 
> utilize the feature to import your email contacts and send connection 
> requests to all of them, *please* un-check the mailing list addresses... 
> since apparently this has now been done twice...
> 
> -j antman
> 
> On 01/08/2013 04:26 AM, glauber gabriel via LinkedIn wrote:
>> LinkedIn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> glauber gabriel requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
>>   
>> --
>> 
>> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>> 
>> Accept invitation from glauber gabriel
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/q0XU4EiXDUS2IbxL1NdPb3ZaZI/blk/I294101987_50/3wOtCVFbmdxnSVFbm8JrnpKqlZJrmZzbmNJpjRQnOpBtn9QfmhBt71BoSd1p65Lr6lOfP0RnPsUej4McjgVcAALd6AVcPd4i6gLd3kUcPcPcjkOc34LrCBxbOYWrSlI/eml-comm_invm-b-in_ac-inv28/?hs=false&tok=0pb-Og-tPmgRA1
>> 
>> View profile of glauber gabriel
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/rso/83706038/sJhI/name/50054316_I294101987_50/?hs=false&tok=2w8mzCcH_mgRA1
>> --
>> You are receiving Invitation emails.
>> 
>> 
>> This email was intended for Ted Fischer.
>> Learn why this is included: 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/plh/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp%2Elinkedin%2Ecom%2Fapp%2Fanswers%2Fdetail%2Fa_id%2F4788/-GXI/?hs=false&tok=34iKGZTnzmgRA1
>> 
>> (c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, 
>> USA.
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 

Re: LA locally owned ISP

[Matt Chung]

Hey Jeroen,
Hope all is well. I use to work as a network engineer at a regional ISP
based out in LA - Bel Air Internet. Feel free to unicast me if you have any
questions.


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart  wrote:

> Not exactly a nanog subject but I would like to know if there is a
> (ideally) locally owned ISP in LA that's knowledgeable, for DSL service.
> Something like cruzio in Santa Cruz. Trying to avoid the big ones such as
> AT&T and comcast.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeroen
>
> --
> Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
> Date: Tuesday, January  8, 2013 14:46:33 UTC
> Location: Southeastern Alaska
> Latitude: 56.0080; Longitude: -135.4542
> Depth: 10.00 km
>
>


-- 
-Matt Chung

LA locally owned ISP

[Jeroen van Aart]

Not exactly a nanog subject but I would like to know if there is a 
(ideally) locally owned ISP in LA that's knowledgeable, for DSL service. 
Something like cruzio in Santa Cruz. Trying to avoid the big ones such 
as AT&T and comcast.


Thanks,
Jeroen

--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Tuesday, January  8, 2013 14:46:33 UTC
Location: Southeastern Alaska
Latitude: 56.0080; Longitude: -135.4542
Depth: 10.00 km

RE: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Sameer Khosla]

We use mailfoundry internally ourselves, but I have a customer who has been 
raving about mimecast for years and I am on the verge of switching over to them.

Thanks
Sameer


-Original Message-
From: Erik Soosalu [mailto:erik.soos...@calyxinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:27 AM
To: Paul Stewart; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

I am an enterprise guy, but we've been running MS Forefront Online Protection 
for Exchange for a number of years with very few issues (that aren't determined 
by flags/polices we've set).  The few issues that we have had have been with 
delayed SMTP handoffs between Hostopia (Bell's backend provider) and FOPE, but 
I haven't had reports of that for a couple of years.


Thanks,
Erik
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:p...@paulstewart.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

Hey there.

 

We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus 
protection for customer email accounts.

 

Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to 
transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business." 

 

As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any changes to 
your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your Postini service 
will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be in touch at 
least 60 days before your renewal date."

 

In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until the end 
of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their preferred 
partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.

 

Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we "must 
transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.
Geesh,
talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!

 

Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine with 
leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in hearing 
about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based - this is
*not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

Re: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Ray Wong]

I used to work for Postini, but have long since lost touch with pretty
much everyone there. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner.
When Google bought them (what, over 5 years now?), it seemed fairly
obvious they were going to be integrating them into their own email
offerings. The lack of customer service is, somewhat sadly, fairly
typical of Google's offerings. Once you get into dealings with
Google's actual business units it's a little better, but still always
a challenge to reach a human being who can actually give you straight
answers and simplify things. Actually, pretty typical IME of almost
every company that's run by the Tech people(top execs not
withstanding, they've always favored promoting/hiring techier people
to oversee pretty much everything... even sales types get the tech
screen interviews, just with lower grading standards) to forget how to
actually treat customers.

-R>

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Erik Soosalu  wrote:
> I am an enterprise guy, but we've been running MS Forefront Online
> Protection for Exchange for a number of years with very few issues (that
> aren't determined by flags/polices we've set).  The few issues that we
> have had have been with delayed SMTP handoffs between Hostopia (Bell's
> backend provider) and FOPE, but I haven't had reports of that for a
> couple of years.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stewart [mailto:p...@paulstewart.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:51 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Postini Exiting ISP Business?
>
> Hey there.
>
>
>
> We have been using Postini for a number of years as our
> anti-spam/anti-virus
> protection for customer email accounts.
>
>
>
> Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
> transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business."
>
>
>
> As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any
> changes
> to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your
> Postini
> service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be
> in
> touch at least 60 days before your renewal date."
>
>
>
> In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until
> the
> end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their
> preferred
> partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.
>
>
>
> Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we
> "must
> transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.
> Geesh,
> talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!
>
>
>
> Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine
> with
> leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in
> hearing
> about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based -
> this is
> *not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>

Fwd: Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP and a friend for decades, has died at 56

[Rich Kulawiec]

- Forwarded message from Lauren Weinstein  -

> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:35:59 -0800
> From: Lauren Weinstein 
> To: nnsq...@nnsquad.org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP and a friend for
>   decades, has died at 56
> 
> Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP and a friend for decades, has
> died at 56

Lauren was also kind enough to provide a link to a posting on Google+
which provides more information:

https://plus.google.com/114753028665775786510/posts/4YvWfnneTyN

Mark did an awful, awful lot for all of us and for huge numbers of
people who'll never know his name.  Perhaps it would be appropriate
to take a moment and send a kind thought to his family/friends via
the funeral home guestbook:

http://cookfamilyfuneralhome.com/obits/obituaries.asp?Id=1344

---rsk

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

[Tim Vollebregt]

Hi,

What we do nowadays as some workaround, is configuring a default route towards 
a core router on 8 x 10G before maintaining an MX box. Which will be installed 
before BGP sessions come up, this will cause some packet loss during burst hour 
outages but is fine during maintenance hours. 

I've seen cases where it took up to 30 minutes before the full table was 
installed correctly in the PFE's.

Currently this issue/bug is holding back our Juniper deployments. As far as I 
know Juniper created a project group for this bug, and so far they were able to 
reproduce the issue. Looks like the issue is being taken serious from now.

Tim

On Oct 3, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

> I think route retention might help in the event the table was cleared or
> routing process restarted but I don't that it will help with a boot
> because the table structures are being built as part of the system
> initialization.  In reality, I would expect the static routes to get
> installed very early as soon as the routing process comes up.  Since you
> will need a route to your BGP neighbor (even though it may be directly
> connected, it is still a route), routing has to be up BEFORE BGP
> establishes and by definition your static routes will have to be up
> before your BGP routes are ready.  How well your router responds to
> traffic during an initial boot and during a 300,000 route update is
> another story.  My experience with very large routers and tables is that
> you will have a hard time guaranteeing user traffic will pass with very
> much performance during an event like a full table rebuild.  Luckily
> with the bandwidth we have these days and the CPU power on the routers,
> it does not take that long to pull in a full internet table and begin
> handling traffic.
> 
> Steven Naslund
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jensen Tyler [mailto:jty...@fiberutilities.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:45 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues
> 
> Look into Static route retain. Should keep the route in the forwarding
> table.
> 
> From Jniper site
> <<<
> Route Retention
> 
> By default, static routes are not retained in the forwarding table when
> the routing process shuts down. When the routing process starts up
> again, any routes configured as static routes must be added to the
> forwarding table again. To avoid this latency, routes can be flagged as
> retain, so that they are kept in the forwarding table even after the
> routing process shuts down. Retention ensures that the routes are always
> in the forwarding table, even immediately after a system reboot.
 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jensen Tyler
> Sr Engineering Manager
> Fiberutilities Group, LLC
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Benny Amorsen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:32 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: Saku Ytti; juniper-...@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues
> 
> Jared Mauch  writes:
> 
>> As far as the fallback 'default' route, if you are purchasing transit 
>> from someone, you could consider a last-resort default pointed at 
>> them. You can exclude routes like 10/8 etc by routing these to discard
>> + install on your devices.
> 
> That only helps if the default gets installed first, though. If the
> default has to wait at boot in the krt-queue behind the 300k+
> Internet-routes, I have not really gained anything...
> 
> I suppose it is likely that a static default would be installed before
> the BGP sessions even come up.
> 
> 
> /Benny
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-...@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> 

RE: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Erik Soosalu]

I am an enterprise guy, but we've been running MS Forefront Online
Protection for Exchange for a number of years with very few issues (that
aren't determined by flags/polices we've set).  The few issues that we
have had have been with delayed SMTP handoffs between Hostopia (Bell's
backend provider) and FOPE, but I haven't had reports of that for a
couple of years.


Thanks,
Erik 
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:p...@paulstewart.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:51 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

Hey there.

 

We have been using Postini for a number of years as our
anti-spam/anti-virus
protection for customer email accounts.

 

Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business." 

 

As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any
changes
to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your
Postini
service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be
in
touch at least 60 days before your renewal date."

 

In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until
the
end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their
preferred
partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.

 

Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we
"must
transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.
Geesh,
talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!

 

Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine
with
leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in
hearing
about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based -
this is
*not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

Re: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Adam Greene]

We're in the same boat as Paul and have been investigating McAfee Email 
Protection (used to be MX Logic). A bit more expensive than Postini, but 
also more full featured. Additional options can be added on as well, 
like archiving & outbound encryption.


We've thought about deploying a virtual appliance in our datacenter like 
Barracuda but kind of don't want to have to deal with administering it 
all ourselves in house. Outsourcing is attractive to us for this service.


On 1/8/2013 9:07 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

We got off Postini many years ago, and have never looked back..
We switched to Katharion, today they are known as GFI Max Mail,
Let me know if u are interested in switching, I will be more than happy to send 
u the contact info for them.

Regards

Faisal

On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:51 AM, "Paul Stewart"  wrote:


Hey there.



We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus
protection for customer email accounts.



Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business."



As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any changes
to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your Postini
service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be in
touch at least 60 days before your renewal date."



In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until the
end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their preferred
partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.



Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we "must
transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.  Geesh,
talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!



Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine with
leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in hearing
about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based - this is
*not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.



Thanks,



Paul

Re: Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

We got off Postini many years ago, and have never looked back..
We switched to Katharion, today they are known as GFI Max Mail, 
Let me know if u are interested in switching, I will be more than happy to send 
u the contact info for them.

Regards

Faisal

On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:51 AM, "Paul Stewart"  wrote:

> Hey there.
> 
> 
> 
> We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus
> protection for customer email accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
> transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business." 
> 
> 
> 
> As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any changes
> to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your Postini
> service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be in
> touch at least 60 days before your renewal date."
> 
> 
> 
> In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until the
> end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their preferred
> partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we "must
> transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.  Geesh,
> talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine with
> leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in hearing
> about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based - this is
> *not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 

Postini Exiting ISP Business?

[Paul Stewart]

Hey there.

 

We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus
protection for customer email accounts.

 

Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business." 

 

As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any changes
to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your Postini
service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be in
touch at least 60 days before your renewal date."

 

In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until the
end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their preferred
partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them.

 

Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we "must
transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012.  Geesh,
talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer!

 

Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini?  We are fine with
leaving them, especially now.  Having said that, I'm interested in hearing
about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based - this is
*not* an invitation for sales people to call me please.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

[Jason Antman]

If you use LinkedIn (a popular business-oriented social networking 
site), and utilize the feature to import your email contacts and send 
connection requests to all of them, *please* un-check the mailing list 
addresses... since apparently this has now been done twice...


-j antman

On 01/08/2013 04:26 AM, glauber gabriel via LinkedIn wrote:

LinkedIn





 glauber gabriel requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
   


--

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

Accept invitation from glauber gabriel
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/q0XU4EiXDUS2IbxL1NdPb3ZaZI/blk/I294101987_50/3wOtCVFbmdxnSVFbm8JrnpKqlZJrmZzbmNJpjRQnOpBtn9QfmhBt71BoSd1p65Lr6lOfP0RnPsUej4McjgVcAALd6AVcPd4i6gLd3kUcPcPcjkOc34LrCBxbOYWrSlI/eml-comm_invm-b-in_ac-inv28/?hs=false&tok=0pb-Og-tPmgRA1

View profile of glauber gabriel
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/rso/83706038/sJhI/name/50054316_I294101987_50/?hs=false&tok=2w8mzCcH_mgRA1
--
You are receiving Invitation emails.


This email was intended for Ted Fischer.
Learn why this is included: 
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-hbou45ow-6b/plh/http%3A%2F%2Fhelp%2Elinkedin%2Ecom%2Fapp%2Fanswers%2Fdetail%2Fa_id%2F4788/-GXI/?hs=false&tok=34iKGZTnzmgRA1

(c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.