On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> > I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone
> > does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type
> > services?
>
> The average customer doesn't even know what teln
do you think fufme (http://www.fu-fme.com/) would work well over nat? :
--
Tomas Daniska
systems engineer
Tronet Computer Networks
Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia
tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by b
> > A NAT'd cell phone
> > wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
>
> A NAT is not a firewall.
>
> A firewall is not a NAT.
>
> Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just as
> some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
>
> Please stop perpetuating the my
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
> Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
> ed
> after all ...
No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the question of whether
it's worth doing on that class display device
On the other h
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use the technology. can i get
private forwards of other similar messages? (see
below.)
(and yes, i'll also be in touch with level3, who
serves 166.90.15.236, from whence this message came.)
(time was, anyone who could use
We have an available cabinet, with private 100mb FDDI connection, available
for rent/sale at 55 Market Street, 11th floor.
Please contact me off-list if interested.
Andrew Staples
"As the evening sky faded from a salmon color to a sort of flint gray, I
thought
back to the salmon I caught that
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:46:45AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> (time was, anyone who could use postfix and php would
> also know better than to spam, or at least, to spam *me*.
> .)
If you feel like you don't have enough spam, I'd be happy to let you have
some of mine. :)
--
Richard A Stee
Not me, but I am getting an awful lot of emails from this one person, to
my nanog address lately:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 21586 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 03:09:28 -
Received: from unknown (HELO sohu.com) (203.240.184.78)
by
no spam. But I just took apart an IRC controlled botnet
that used their service.
(The trojan was a basic 'floodnet' binary and was distributed
via email... )
--
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Join http://www.DShield.org
Distributed Intrusion Detection
Greetings all,
Sorry to post this, but it appears that past emails to RoadRunner
re a spammer (sending out attachments to boot) have been
ineffective. Only ~150kB, but multiply that by however many
victims... I'd think and hope *someone* cares.
Back to on-topic material. I just wanted to see
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:29:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
>
> > Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
> > ed
> > after all ...
>
> No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the quest
In the referenced message, Eric Gauthier said:
> Another limitation that we've found with uRPF is that it doesn't
> live well with multihomed systems (i.e. a host with two NIC's - each on
> a different subnet) because of the way most OS'es handle their
> default gateways. For anyone who is in
You would think the phone companies who already have most of the necessary
resources, i.e. the yellow pages/directory listings, would be all over this
idea as a way to sell thier device/generate even more listing revenue.
Killer app: Cell Phone/PDA/GPSw Mapping,routing in a Palm form factor.
Ju
On 5/3/02 12:05 PM, "Stephen Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most Cisco boxes have 3 related modes of uRPF: 1) pure RPF, if
> forwarding path back to source doesn't go via interface packet
> received from, then dump. I believe, but am not positive, that it
> will handle equal-cost-mult
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search
> engine that can answer my question, "Where can I find a coffee house
> {optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los
> Angeles {optionally: the Valley
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
>
> You would think the phone companies who already have most of the necessary
> resources, i.e. the yellow pages/directory listings, would be all over this
> idea as a way to sell thier device/generate even more listing revenue.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
> for single-homed customers, simple uRPF
> for multihomed customers, acl exceptions based upon their registered
> IRR-policy, since the customer should already be registering in the IRR
> you have a list of all networks reachable via the customer, rega
Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
Toan
On Fri, 3 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Sorry to post this, but it appears that past emails to RoadRunner
> re a spammer (sending out attachments to boot) have been
> ineffective. Only ~150kB, but multiply that by however many
> victims... I'd think and hope *someone* cares.
>
> Back to on-t
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Toan Do wrote:
> Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
Yes, works fine (on an all Cisco network).
We're starting to use /31's on internal links. Links to third parties
are still /30's, as most other people are still wary.
Simon
--
Simon
Hi Simon,
What IOS are you using /31s with ?
André
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Lockhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Toan Do" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: /31 mask address
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Toan
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 10:30:05PM +0200, Andre Chapuis wrote:
> What IOS are you using /31s with ?
Typically 12.0(x)S on GSR and VXR (where x is 10ish upwards)
Simon
--
Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676
Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 8
Andre Chapuis wrote:
For what purpose can this be used? Can a point to point link function
with this subnet mask? It would be ok if the requirement for a network
and broadcast IP were removed.
Regards,
Mannu
>Hi Simon,
>What IOS are you using /31s with ?
>André
>
>- Original Message
Do you really need broadcasts on your p2p links ? I do not..
André
- Original Message -
From: "Manolo Hernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andre Chapuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: /31 mask address
Andre Chapuis wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: May 3, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
>
> as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
> piqued when spa
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Hermann Wecke
> Sent: May 3, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Mitch Halmu
> Subject: Re: RoadRunner abuse?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
>
> > Good luck. Roadrunner is
> I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
spam is
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: May 3, 2002 5:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
>
> > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly
>
Simon Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri May 03, 2002 at 10:30:05PM +0200, Andre Chapuis wrote:
> > What IOS are you using /31s with ?
>
> Typically 12.0(x)S on GSR and VXR (where x is 10ish upwards)
Not all 12.1(x)y does this properly, even if it was compiled over a
year after that
At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are sent
to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got these
test messages, they started sending quite a bit of spam. I filtered
sohu.com and it went away.
>Not m
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > and no-ip.com emailed you to
At 02:59 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
>I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are
>sent to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got
>these test messages, they started sending quite a bit of
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big
deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
of my accou
hmmm, as long as you allow directed broadcast on the interfaces... it
should work...
On 3 May 2002 at 16:24, Toan Do wrote:
>
> Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
>
> Toan
>
>
--
Miguel Mata-Cardona
Intercom El Salvador
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the issue is that in real-world spam, the spammer is actually paying
some price to make the spam arrive in your snail mail box. This allows for
some negative feedback inhibition [if the mailings cost exceeds the return,
its not continued]. With spam, especially in this flat-rate world, t
Content providers have to recieve and hold spam mail before they
delete it. People and mailing lists who have well-published addresses
can recieve hundreds of spam messages a day. I know that, without my
filters, I would easily spend 30-45 minutes a day downloading,
identifying, and deleting s
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:27:51PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> >
> > It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM
> > subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
>
> GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple
> other Pacific-Rim c
Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
and I don't see them listed.
Reply off list if preferred.
Thanks,
Dave
> ... I'm not sure entirely what the big deal with spam is. Honestly sure
> I get it like everyone else, in some of my accounts more than others
> ... I have a delete key ...
in the time between when you sent the above, and when i read it, the
following messages were added to my mailbox:
1+
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
> can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
> friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely
Hello folks,
We're undergoing a ddos attack on one of our machines. Its quite
manageable so far - 28 source IPs, many of them cable modems. But its
the first we've ever suffered, and before we get too deep in, I'd
appreciate pointers to the appropriate law enforcement parties to
contact so we ca
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the "litter" of an otherwise clean Internet.
D) It's a method of placing the costs f
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
> deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
> of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my
> snailmail box. Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key
Reporting Security Incidents (PSIRT Advisories)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/sec_incident_response.shtml#Incidents
If you are under active security attack or believe that you are about to be
attacked, contact the Cisco Technical Assistance Center at +1 408 526 7209
or +1 800 553 2447 or b
Actually, I can agree entirely with this point and it makes sense.
Having direct mail in the snailmail world cost tens of cents each
certainly would tend to force the originator to go through more effort
to insure its sent to and hopefully read by someone who will then buy
what they are sell
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high but I suppose are
possible. Being a parent however and having three children who do use
the net extensively I see your point about the content they receive but
of course the ultimate responsibility for what they are exposed to on
the net lies
No I think your message illustrates things pretty well. I guess the
fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little
to receive these messages it costs even less infact dramatically to send
spam. It seems there is no real reason for the spammer to be concerned
with wh
uWell I tend to always error on the side of free expression verses
making something illegal and I definitely disagree with the statement
that its a clean internet otherwise but just like non electronic space
there are many differing standards and shades of things something I
actually think br
I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on
many levels. I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently
we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very
quickly, some might even say to quickly. I also realize that even
though I personall
when you find it, send it to me :)
- jared
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:00:11PM -0700, David McGaugh wrote:
>
> Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
> and I don't see them listed.
>
> Reply off list if preferred.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
--
Jare
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
> [snip]
> I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> and no
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly shame eBay, who decided
to fire one of their engineers for disclosing their "proprietary" methods
for defending against DoS in the recent NANOG thread.
The only appropriate punishment for a company with its head so far up
its proverbial poop ch
> ... not only does it cost usually very little to receive these messages ...
even if i granted to a third party the right to determine the value of my
time, which i don't, the fact is that an hour or more of my time per day is
too high a price to pay "to receive these messages", by _any_ standa
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
> would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
> checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT someone with my
> best interest in mind and certainly not
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Michael H. Warfield
> Sent: May 3, 2002 10:22 PM
> To: Vivien M.
> Cc: 'Paul Vixie'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at
> > Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
> > and I don't see them listed.
> when you find it, send it to me :)
you need number 6.
in order, as33 was maintained by:
1. brian reid
2. richard johnsson
3. me
4. stephen stuart
5. drew kramer
number six is
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:41:36PM -0400, PS wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
> > would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
> > checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT
Do you mind sharing with us the 4 things that exists only in DoS packets ?
Rubens Kuhl Jr.
- Original Message -
> They CAN filter on anything in the headers, it's just a matter of
> convincing them that the specific filter you want is something they should
> add to their software lan
(and if you are a UUNET customer be sure to call the customer support
numner, report the incident as an attack and ask for an engineer to assist
you immediately, help comes faster when you call your provider)
--Chris
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Hassan, Shehzad wrote:
>
> Reporting
Jason described uRPF in Loose Check mode. This check to see if the source
exist in the FIB. It cuts out some of the garbage while providing you a tool
to do a remote-triggered (via BGP ) drop tool. Think of uRPF as a tool to do
source based black hole filtering.
uRPF Strict Mode is the original
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:13:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
> mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
> us regard it.
>
> A) it wastes bandwidth
> B) It wastes our time
> C) It's th
I'm curious on this "extra traffic" data, since I'm somewhat involved with
antispam website, it'd be interesting to get the statistics and post it to
explain others how bad spam is for internet not only in annoyance but in
actual extra costs and wasted traffic.
Do you have data on approximate
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:14:19PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to publicly shame eBay, who decided
> to fire one of their engineers for disclosing their "proprietary" methods
> for defending against DoS in the recent NANOG thread.
>
> The only
When I re-read my post, I'd like to clarify the "clean" part a bit. I mean
technically clean, as in all of the parts working properly as best as the
fine people represented on this list can make it happen that is...so lets
say "properly operating"...to be a little more specific.
The Internet
64 matches
Mail list logo
