Re: adm and address blocking

2003-09-16 Thread Bill Mullen
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > Additionally, i've been getting attacked from ipt.aol.com. They own the > address range from 172.128.0.0 - 172.211.255.255 What would be the > netmask to block a range like that? 172.128.0.0/8 would block the entire > class B, right? 172.128.0.0/8

RE: adm and address blocking

2003-09-16 Thread Thomas M. Albright
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Travis Roy wrote: > > I find amusing that the adm account on this machine has a mailbox full > > of spam. Amusing tho it may be, how can I stop it from happening? > > You can use some kind of spam blocking software. Anything from spamassassin > to a white-list style. > What

RE: adm and address blocking

2003-09-16 Thread Travis Roy
> I find amusing that the adm account on this machine has a mailbox full > of spam. Amusing tho it may be, how can I stop it from happening? You can use some kind of spam blocking software. Anything from spamassassin to a white-list style. > Additionally, i've been getting attacked from ipt.aol.c

adm and address blocking

2003-09-16 Thread Thomas M. Albright
I find amusing that the adm account on this machine has a mailbox full of spam. Amusing tho it may be, how can I stop it from happening? Additionally, i've been getting attacked from ipt.aol.com. They own the address range from 172.128.0.0 - 172.211.255.255 What would be the netmask to block a

RE: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist

2003-09-16 Thread Travis Roy
http://www.hinterlands.org/ver/txt/ seems it is possible to opt out as well.. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Travis Roy > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Greater NH Linux User Group > Subject: RE: A

RE: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist

2003-09-16 Thread Travis Roy
> This will have the immediate effect of making network trouble-shooting > much more difficult. Before, a mis-typed domain name in an email address, > web browser, or other network configuration item would result in > an obvious > error message. You might not have known what to do about it, but