On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:56:03AM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
> people can't/won't read headers. Most mail clients hide them pretty
> well. I guess that most people don't even konw they are there.
Correct, but appending footers is a problem with cryptographic
signatures, so a pretty much no-go too.
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Webmaster wrote:
> By the way ... I just realized that the list is not handling correctly
> DMARC users. So my own emails when they come back, go to the spam
> folder, which means they are going to the spam folder of many folks.
One could argue that this i
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:29:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the list.
Not necessarily. Especially with the big freemailers, email accounts
sometimes change owners... where old owner didn't unsub from all mailing
lists, espec
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:51:37PM +, Goddess: Primal Chaos wrote:
> ### Do not reply below this line ###
>
> -
> Goddess: Primal Chaos | July 24, 2017 | 18:51 +0100
> --
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:50:07PM +0200, e.vanu...@avm.de wrote:
> CU at BBWF ;-) We are building CPE with IPv6 on board.
Which still can't even do static IPv6 routes or open firewall for
adresses in prefixes not directly connected.
Example: getting a /48 from upstream, either statically routing
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:45:51AM -0700, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> When I posted on the list, I appear to have gotten this bounce from someone
> subscribed here. Could one of the list mods please check this out?
This has been taken care of, thanks.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:59:05PM +, Steve Housego wrote:
> This is interesting, I hadn¹t came across ?Happy Eyeballs¹ essentially
> they attempt both connections simultaneously - this is great.
But proper Happy Eyeballs implementations give IPv6 a positive bias so
to help get traffic moved t
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 08:08:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> It won't be easy to prove that DS-Lite is not being deployed, because there
> are some fairly large deployments in Germany (Kabel Deutschland and
> Unitymedia, both owned by Liberty Global).
Kabel Deutschland (owned by Vodafone),
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 07:58:33PM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 04/06/2014 19:55, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> Could the list admin please un-sub jstr...@cityoftaft.org, who is
>> sending an "I'm retiring" auto-responder?
>
> Oh FFS... and "qual...@of2m.fr" as well?
>
> Has someone bulk-sub'ed a lo
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 03:22:54PM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Sorry for this late reply, but it doesn't make much sense that it is
> sent to the all routers address.
It's not. There is the well-known ff02::2 "all routers on local segment"
multicast address, but ff08::2 (::2 in the well-known orga
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:55:48AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> 11:46:47.456845 00:10:db:ff:20:60 > 00:d0:01:f3:6c:00, ethertype IPv6
> (0x86dd),
> +length 83: 2001:608:xxx:xx::yyy.62029 > ff08::2.8083: UDP, length 21
> 0x: 6000 001d 117f 2001 0608 0xxx 00xx `...
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Blocking by /64 by default is likely to get collateral damage. Enough
> people do shared subnets with multiple customers in the same /64 - while
> I won't recommend it, it is *done*, and blocking the whole /64 because
> you have seen
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 03:14:05PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Every time I post to the list I get an email back from
> i...@prizmaphoto.com. Could someone please check if that address is
> subscribed to this list, and in that case, remove it?
Done.
Best regards,
Daniel (list admin)
--
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:41:30AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Some cool news to start the day with:
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Goes-IPv6-Only-on-Android-44-Devices-126506
Just that "IPv6 only" is a bit misleading. IPv6-only on WAN interface,
but in fact it's dual-stack.
An
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 08:24:14PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> > > Apparently that's fixed in iOS 7 and OS 10.9.
> >
> > The Hampering Eyeballs problem or the aggressive privacy address
> >
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:55:05AM +0200, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
> I presume that those who want ultimate privacy have inspected
> their browsers to not do evercookies[1], removed any features in their
> browsers identifying them via the fingerprint, and ensured that the
> call-home feature of t
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:05:39AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:20:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > Apple is free to provide a reasonable implementation right away... not
> &g
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:14:52PM +0200, Martin Millnert wrote:
> > Anyway, the users will have to pay for that. Too bad users of !AAPL
> > have to subsidize those decisions. Time for an AAPL user NAT tax? :)
>
> Interesting idea. Put AAPL-OUI's IPv4-traffic in lousy-queue in the
> BNG? :}
Nah.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:37:25AM -0400, Bill Owens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:27:34PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:20:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > Apple is free to provide a reasonable implementation right away... not
> >
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:27:34PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> http://labs.apnic.net/ipv6-measurement/AS/2/0/8/2/5/index-months.html
Correct link:
http://labs.apnic.net/ipv6-measurement/AS/2/0/8/2/5/index-months.html#tab-2
"IPv6 Capability by Month".
Best regards,
Daniel
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:20:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Apple is free to provide a reasonable implementation right away... not
> that they would change it, just because there is an RFC...
Given their ignorance of collateral damage done to operators, users
and IPv6 deployment in general by
Hi,
when using OpenVPN dualstack tunnels, I notice that Windows doesn't
realize that it has working IPv6 connectivity for a long time so it
won't use the newly established IPv6 connectivity until re-checking.
Is there any way to manually trigger Windows to re-check IPv6
connectivity?
Best regard
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.cluenet.de
> [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Roesen
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:08 PM
> To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.d
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 10:25:44AM -0400, staticsafe wrote:
> Someone linked to the IETF presentation about MS sunsetting Teredo in
> #ipv6 (Freenode) today:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-v6ops-5.pdf
Sad to see Microsoft pre-announcing such actions only on some closed
li
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:29:43AM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
> b) (much better): have the router advertise the lower MTU you want to use in
> the RAs by just setting a lower MTU on the (router) interfaces in question.
> See also:
> http://blog.ioshints.info/2013/01/mtu-issues-and-tcp-mss-clamping-in
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 05:49:05PM +0200, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> Do I have to go into what happens when a switch runs out of TCAM?
Vendors usually describe what happens "carrier grade". :-)
SCNR & in vacation mood,
Daniel
Hi,
given that Christopher Palmer is on this list, I doubt NANOG ml would
be more helpful. CC'ing him for attention. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:28:41AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 11:24, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> > - Someone advertises records that f
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 02:57:20AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Totally random crazy idea: could there be firewalls on some of these
> > machines that are causing multicast RAs to be filtered but unicast RAs
> > are fine (e.g. a unicast RA reply to an RS)?
>
> Not sure if "firewalls", but I c
28 matches
Mail list logo
