Rogier Wolff wrote:
> The "we'll turn it on in February" warning is worth NOTHING in this
> situation: February comes and goes. March comes and goes. Everybody
> who read the warning will think: Ok, so I must be fine.
>
> A warning of the form: "ECN will go on as soon as this message clears
> the
Folks, herewith I declare this topic ("ECN is on") TABOO, if
you want to continue discussing it, do that at linux-kernel
WITH NEW TOPIC.
My original message had reply-to pointing to linux-kernel,
but all it takes is single person to ignore that...
Spare the other
Richard Gooch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure, Dave is being bloody-minded, but that's the only way we'll see
> people get off their fat, lazy asses and fix their broken systems.
> In fact, hopefully he's still in a dark mood, and he may take up the
> suggestion to bounce mails of the followin
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:55:59AM -0500, Joe Barr wrote:
> What is ECN? Is it the reason SNORT has started this lately:
http://vger.kernel.org/
Follow the links, and you will get an exellent answer.
>
> Active System Attack Alerts
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> May 22 10:11:18 pooh sn
FOLKS, I HAVE ALL THE TIME USED 'Reply-To:' HEADER POINTING
TO linux-kernel -- INSTEAD OF ALL THE LISTS...
If you want to continue this, do it there.
(Before I decide to taboo "Re: ECN is on!" subject line..)
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:23:29PM -0400, Richard Goo
What is ECN? Is it the reason SNORT has started this lately:
Active System Attack Alerts
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
May 22 10:11:18 pooh snort: spp_portscan: PORTSCAN DETECTED from 199.183.24.194
(STEALTH)
May 22 10:11:22 pooh snort: spp_portscan: portscan status from 199.183.24.194: 1
co
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ECN is on!
Rogier Wolff wrote:
> The "we'll turn it on in February" warning is worth NOTHING in this
> situation: February comes and goes. March comes and goes. Everybody
> who read the warning will
Tony Hoyle writes:
> Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > In fact, hopefully he's still in a dark mood, and he may take up the
> > suggestion to bounce mails of the following type:
> > - MIME encoded
> > - HTML encoded
> > - quoted printables (those stupid "=20" things are particuarly hard to
> > read).
Matti Aarnio writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:06:25AM -0400, Richard Gooch wrote:
> ...
> > Sure, Dave is being bloody-minded, but that's the only way we'll see
> > people get off their fat, lazy asses and fix their broken systems.
> > In fact, hopefully he's still in a dark mood, and he may t
Richard Gooch wrote:
> Dave sent a message out a week or two ago saying he was going to do it
> soon. And back in January he said he'd be doing it in February. The
> kernel list FAQ has stated this right at the top, in big, bright red
> letters. Yesterday, after I saw Dave's announcement, I update
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:00:22PM +0100, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> > suggestion to bounce mails of the following type:
> > - MIME encoded
> > - HTML encoded
> > - quoted printables (those stupid "=20" things are particuarly hard to
> > read).
>
> Surely it'd be better to get the list to filter them
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:06:25AM -0400, Richard Gooch wrote:
...
> Sure, Dave is being bloody-minded, but that's the only way we'll see
> people get off their fat, lazy asses and fix their broken systems.
> In fact, hopefully he's still in a dark mood, and he may take up the
> suggestion to boun
Richard Gooch wrote:
> In fact, hopefully he's still in a dark mood, and he may take up the
> suggestion to bounce mails of the following type:
> - MIME encoded
> - HTML encoded
> - quoted printables (those stupid "=20" things are particuarly hard to
> read).
Surely it'd be better to get the l
Brent D. Norris writes:
> > I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> > get people to fix their kit.
> >
> > We will remove these people, that's all.
>
> Isn't this a problem though because the messge saying that ECN was
> enabled was set after ECN was enabled? Thus
Alan Cox writes:
> > Matti Aarnio writes:
> > > I am contemplating to periodically turn off the ECN bit to
> > > let email out, but DaveM has veto there.
> >
> > I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> > get people to fix their kit.
> >
> > We will remove these p
Folks, don't speculate. You are late anyway.
We just had ECN off for two hours, and all sites which didn't
commit harakiri at their firewalls ("bad TCP frame from that address,
I will place that source into dead list") now either got their message,
or are having some long-term troubles
At 10:18 AM 5/22/01, Steve Modica wrote:
>Perhaps it's none of my business, but it doesn't seem very sporting to
>just turn something on that breaks stuff and say "you had fair
>warning". Why not shut it back off, issue a statement saying it works
>now and will be re-enabled on June 10th or som
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Matti Aarnio writes:
> > I am contemplating to periodically turn off the ECN bit to
> > let email out, but DaveM has veto there.
>
> I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> get people to fix their kit.
>
> We will remove these people
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:51:57AM -0500, Brent D. Norris wrote:
> > I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> > get people to fix their kit.
> >
> Isn't this a problem though because the messge saying that ECN was enabled
> was set after ECN was enabled? Thus these p
Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... and immediately I have been able to verify a bunch of
> domains/servers which won't get thru when incoming connection
> has ECN.
As a matter of interest, are you also noting how many actually
negotiate ECN rather than simply responding with a "plain
> I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> get people to fix their kit.
>
Isn't this a problem though because the messge saying that ECN was enabled
was set after ECN was enabled? Thus these people have no idea what is
going on and they probably won't know what to fi
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:10:31PM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> This list is NOT exhaustive of domains with problems, it
> primarily lists only those who are subscribers of linux-kernel,
> and thus accumulated (al lot) more than 1 email with "connection
> timed out" status into vger's queue.
>
>
> Matti Aarnio writes:
> > I am contemplating to periodically turn off the ECN bit to
> > let email out, but DaveM has veto there.
>
> I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
> get people to fix their kit.
>
> We will remove these people, that's all.
Since HTML em
Matti Aarnio writes:
> I am contemplating to periodically turn off the ECN bit to
> let email out, but DaveM has veto there.
I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
get people to fix their kit.
We will remove these people, that's all.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAI
... and immediately I have been able to verify a bunch of
domains/servers which won't get thru when incoming connection
has ECN.I tested all of these with Linux running ECN, and
Solaris 2.6 without ECN. When Solaris got connection, and
ECN-Linux didn't, domain and its server got listed.
Amaz
25 matches
Mail list logo
