Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
On 11/29/14, 12:26 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: However, in the case of SMTP, due to the amount of spam, most ISPs break network neutrality by blocking outbound port 25 for instance Whatever Net Neutrality may mean this week, it is usually intended to allow for reasonable network management practices, including preventing network abuse. In the case of port blocking, it is permissible provided it is disclosed transparently. - Jason
Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
On 11/29/14, 3:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: PS: I know enough technical people at Comcast that I would be extremely surprised if it were Comcast doing this. There's plenty not to like about the corporation, but the technical staff are quite competent. Thanks, John! I can tell folks here unequivocally that (1) the recent press article on STARTTLS re-writing did *not* involve Comcast and (2) Comcast does not engage in the claimed practice. In fact, we¹re supporters and early deployers of STARTTLS on our own mail service. I do not know how to explain the issue reported on this list. Absent a packet capture it is impossible for me to analyze this further. If anything, I could only imagine it was a misconfiguration someplace, but I have no idea where or in what network element that¹d even be possible. I¹m happy to work with anyone that has more info to try to troubleshoot this. - Jason Livingood Comcast
ISPs Behaving Badly: GIGLINX slime was Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads
Ressurecting this thread: GIGLINX is still at it. They contacted me on an email that was only ever used for registering an ASN with ARIN. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: The usual method is to insert ringers which would be info which points back at non-existant people with valid-looking contact information. If for example they called a phone number, or several, owned by ARIN (or a service they employed) asking for James T Kirk or Diana Prince then that would be a problem and should be logged. There are some interesting non-obvious elements in the database for such purposes and we do take action when they are triggered. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Postmaster @ charter.net
Hi all, Sorry for the noise, but my emails to postmas...@charter.net are getting rejected. Our mail server is being rejected by charter.net for not having a reverse DNS PTR record, but all the publicly available DNS servers I am able to query are resolving the PTR without any errors. If anyone has a direct contact within Charter that they could put me in contact with it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tim Donahue
Re: Equinix Virginia - Ethernet OOB suggestions
On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: because a /23 of ipv6 is very large :) That’s a good reason not to use a /23, but not a good reason not to use IPv6. also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it... #fios No it’s not… #tunnelbroker Owen On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: Why use IPv4 for OOB? Seems a little late in the day for that. -Bill On Nov 10, 2014, at 15:02, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Paul S. cont...@winterei.se wrote: I'd be doubtful if anyone will feel like offering a /23 with OOB as justification these days, sadly. why thought? Justification is really about having a use for the ips, right? and if you have 500 servers/network-devices ... then you have justification for a /23 ... it seems to me. Good luck nonetheless. On 11/10/2014 午後 11:00, Ruairi Carroll wrote: Hey, VPN setup is not really a viable option (for us) in this scenario. Honestly, I'd prefer to just call it done already and have a VPN but due to certain restraints, we have to go down this route. /Ruairi On 10 November 2014 14:38, Alistair Mackenzie magics...@gmail.com wrote: Couldn't you put a router or VPN system on the single IP they are giving you and use RFC1918 addressing space? OOB doesn't normally justify a /24 let alone a /23. On 10 November 2014 13:18, Ruairi Carroll ruairi.carr...@gmail.com wrote: Dear List, I've got an upcoming deployment in Equinix (DC10) and I'm struggling to find a provider who can give me a 100Mbit port (With a commit of about 5-10Mbit) with a /23 or /24 of public space , for OOB purposes. We had hoped to use Equinixs services, however they're limiting us to a single public IP. I'm also open to other solutions - xDSL or similar, but emphasis is on cheap and on-net. Cheers /Ruairi
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Jérôme Nicolle wrote: Is it unrealistic to hope for enough salesmen pressure on the corporate ladder to make such moronic attitude be reversed in the short term ? No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well that eliminating vendor lock-in means they will lose sales on artificially costly optics from $vendor to a lower-cost rival. Less sales = less commission for the affected sales person. jms Which is why there is NO Arista gear in my network… They lose sales of costly routers as well as optics to any customer who doesn’t want to promote this behavior. It boils down to how much you want to tolerate/support/encourage this behavior. If you feel strongly like I do that such behavior is aberrant and should be strongly discouraged, then vote with your $$$ and don’t buy from vendors that do that. Let your vendors that you don’t buy from know why they lost the sale. I’ve found that showing a vendor a price-redacted copy of the PO to the other vendor can often lead to changes in the way they approach the next sales cycle. Owen
