Re: Yahoo DMARC breakage
On 10 Apr 2014, at 9:49, Dave Crocker wrote: Unfortunately, that has no relationship to do with the current situation. Again: Yahoo was fully aware of the implications of its choice. I suspect they looked at the amount of spam they could stop, the number of Yahoo email users, and the number of Yahoo users using mailing lists, and said That's just noise, it doesn't matter. It happens to be very loud noise, but it's still tiny compared to the overall number of email users.
Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
On Sep 7, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Keith Medcalf kmedc...@dessus.com wrote: The appropriate party to inform would be the FBI ... The word fraud comes to mind, and millions of 50 centses puts company officers in prison for a long long long time. The charges did indeed expire rather than get posted. None of which excuses Yahoo!'s complete lack of customer support (and broken charge system), but at least there's that.
Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which won't be settled, almost certainly. I'd have more faith in that if a) there weren't three of them and b) they didn't then tell me that my credit card information was invalid. My guess is that their system failed somewhere between posting the charge and clearing it. However, they *are* still in the Pending category on my card, we'll see if they get posted.
Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: They're just validating a credit card number; that was an authorization which won't be settled, almost certainly. I'd have more faith in that if a) there weren't three of them and b) they didn't then tell me that my credit card information was invalid. My guess is that their system failed somewhere between posting the charge and clearing it. However, they *are* still in the Pending category on my card, we'll see if they get posted.
Re: Yahoo is now recycling handles
On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: I've got to apologize publicly to Yahoo! here as part of my issue was my own stupidity. It appears in the past I've had multiple Yahoo! ID's and I was I, on the other hand, need someone from Yahoo! to contact me, because I decided to test their email wishlist feature. Repeated attempts got me nothing but a message saying that my credit card information was incorrect. But when I checked my bill this morning, I have three fifty cent charges against my account (one for each time I revalidated my email address while attempting to use their form). There's no contact page on http://wishlist.yahoo.com, despite the fact that it's an ecommerce page that takes credit cards, and there's no apparent way to contact a human from the main yahoo page. I can always ask my credit card company to refuse the charges, but if Yahoo! is charging credit cards and not providing services, I think someone there needs to know there's a problem. Never mind taking credit card numbers and providing no customer support.
Re: Google+ now available for Google Apps domains
On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Justin Seabrook-Rocha wrote: Once that tool is complete, you should be able to merge/migrate your gmail G+ account to your Google Apps account. You can already do so with most of the numerous other Google properties. Keep in mind that if you want to publicly post on Google+ using your Google Apps account, you will need to change your account name to conform with Google's definition of something that looks kind of like the thing on your government photo ID.
Re: Google+ now available for Google Apps domains
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jay Mitchell wrote: Possibly not for much longer: http://mashable.com/2011/10/19/google-to-support-pseudonyms/ Google officially* repudiated that, saying it was nothing new, just their old promise that eventually they plan to offer pseudonym support if they can solve the technical problems. * By officially, I mean that Google+ VP Vic Gundotra commented in Mike Elgan's post that Mike was correct. That's about as official as Google gets when it comes to the policy.
Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: I really wish people would keep their personal/political bias outside the list unless it is specific and relevant. What other main-stream news organization has made any reports on this issue? As much as I agree with the comments people have made, you're right, they aren't appropriate for this forum. However, it *is* possible to cover properly: IP Address Shortage Has ISPs Scrambling For Space http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128907099 Bear with us while we go a little deeper into the digital landscape. We're going to talk about IPv4 exhaustion next. Don't be scared - we'll break it down. Here it goes. Everything that can be connected directly to the Internet - computers, cell phones, game systems, TVs, even cars - has an Internet Protocol, or IP address. IP version 4, or IPv4, has just over 4 billion unique addresses. But with so many Internet-ready devices on the market, the current supply of IP addresses will run out sometime next year. John Curran is going to explain what that means for Internet users. He's the president and CEO of the American Registry for Internet Numbers, and he's in the studio at member station KPBS in San Diego. Welcome to the program.
Re: Coax wiring. MoCA between neighbors.
On Jun 10, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Dongsu Han wrote: I'm also trying to find out whether my neighbors would be able to overhear the MoCA signal from my apartment. Anyone knows the answer? I can't speak to what they are *supposed* to do, but my experience is that things can be overheard. Last summer I discovered that my Comcast cable had two premium digital channels I hadn't ordered. One was showing soft porn, and while I was sitting there pondering this, it began to fast forward. Not surprisingly, it was fast forwarding over the boring parts and then watching the naughty bits at normal speed. I can only assume that one of the neighboring houses has video-on-demand.
Re: [funsec] McColo: Major Source of Online Scams and Spams Knocked Offline (fwd)
After reading this, and the (Washington Post I believe--I'm away from my laptop right now) article on this, two things are bothering me. The article expressed a good deal of frustration with the (lack of) speed with which law enforcement has been tackling these issues. What wasn't clear was whether any attempt had been made to involve them prior to the shutdown. At the very least, it seems that this makes any prosecution more difficult. While it appears that folks did a great job of following the network connections--to nail the individuals involved you need to follow the money. Even worse, what if the FBI *was* investigating them already, and now their target has been shut down? Unless there was behind-the-scenes cooperation that hasn't been reported, someone (on either the technical or law enforcement side) was not behaving responsibly. This should have been a coordinated shutdown--simultaneously involving closing network connections and arresting individuals. Secondly, aren't we still playing whack-a-mole here? The network controlled over a million compromised PCs. Those machines are still compromised. Since the individuals who controlled them are evidently still at large, I think it's safe to assume that the keys to those machines are still out there. If that's the case, then those machines will be up and spamming again inside of a week. The only thing that might delay that would be if the primary payment processors really were taken offline as well. I don't want to open the counter-virus can of worms. But how hard would it have been to identify the control sequences for those PCs and change them to random sequences? Shutting down a central control center is good news, but taking 1.5 million PCs permanently (at least until next infection) out of a botnet would be really impressive. Maybe more information will prove me wrong, but right now this seems more like a lost opportunity than a great success. I was quite surprised to hear that so many operations were centralized in one place. I doubt that opportunity is going to come again. Kee Hinckley CEO/CTO Somewhere, Inc.
Re: DNS attacks evolve
On Aug 9, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: second, please think carefully about the word severe. any time someone can cheerfully hammer you at full-GigE speed for 10 hours, you've got some trouble, and you'll need to monitor for those troubles. 11 seconds of 10MBit/sec fit my definition of severe. 10 hours at 1000MBit/sec doesn't. I think what we're seeing here is the realization that DNS hosting, like web hosting, is no longer something that can simply be done by tossing a machine on the internet and leaving it there; it needs professional management, monitoring and updates. That's always a hard transition for some people to make, but it's one that has to be made; that's the world we live in. Kee Hinckley CEO/CTO Somewhere Inc. Somewhere: http://www.somewhere.com/ TechnoSocial: http://xrl.us/bh35i I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate those of everybody else.
