Mulberry is definitely worth a look for the setup you describe
(http://www.cyrusoft.com/). It's the only mailer I've tried that does
IMAP, including off-line use, really well.
My largest folder right now is 8606 messages and it handles it fine
(it does have a problem with *huge* text message
I'm afraid you have brought up one of my pet peeves here.
On 03:57 PM 7/9/02, Bill Thompson wrote:
>What you are seeing is PGP/MIME, a standards based protocol for
Standards exist as a way for parties who *agree* to use certain data
formats to use a previously defined standard format witho
Hi there folks.
Just a quick question that has come up at my workplace.
We are running some streaming services and have got a new proper
server which is going into the main machine room as opposed to the
old one which is sat in our building.
One question that has been put forward is how to go a
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer
> references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random
> X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems
> to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the
> last month
Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded some edge routers to a new JunOS
release (possibly 5.3 rev 24)- and now our bgp sessions continually
reset with:
Jul 10 06:58:24 MST: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor X.X.X.X 3/3 (update missing
required attributes) 0 bytes
Anyone clueful at GBLX liste
Guess no one uses Pegasus Mail anymore,
*reminiscence of the good ol days when that was all that the Department of
Defense used*
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Majdi S. Abbas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject
on 7/10/2002 6:06 AM JC Dill wrote:
> list. What makes the PGP-MIME standard different, and so important,
> that the rest of us have to adapt to it, while eschewing other new
> standards?
Nobody is forcing anybody to adopt it.
OTOH, complaining to people who use the spec about problems with
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:50:13 -0400, Matt Rowley wrote:
>>Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a
>>successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real
>>Server? If so, then how did you go about it?
>
>Have a tool like big brother point to the rtsp and mms ports
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0700, nanog wrote:
> Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded some edge routers to a new JunOS
> release (possibly 5.3 rev 24)- and now our bgp sessions continually
> reset with:
>
> Jul 10 06:58:24 MST: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor X.X.X.X 3/3 (update
>m
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:10:44PM +0100, cw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:50:13 -0400, Matt Rowley wrote:
> >>Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a
> >>successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real
> >>Server? If so, then how did you go about it?
>
HA!
I remember pegasus! That was ages ago.
before windows... Our branch got all macs (the really old shoebox ones)
before we'd succumb but we were over ruled eventually. They have them in
the smithsonian now.
enough ot. back to work.
Jane
"Gerardo A. Gregory" wrote:
>
> Guess no one uses
I'd settle for a MUA that when it gets a Jeopardy-posted message;
it reverses the phase of the poloron burst and reflects it back
to the offender, causing a panel on the bridge to burst into flame
(and a red-shirt to die).
(It follows up with an automagic kill-file entry, in case they have
No C
"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote:
> I remember pegasus! That was ages ago.
How did you install it, did it come on 8mm tape? Or did you download it
from the local WaReZ BBS?
> enough ot
Jane, have you EVER posted anything on-topic?
Frank Rizzo
Good ol Frank, we can always count on you! Get a job, man.
Jane
Rizzo Frank wrote:
>
> "Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote:
> > I remember pegasus! That was ages ago.
>
> How did you install it, did it come on 8mm tape? Or did you download it
> from the local WaReZ BBS?
>
> > enough ot
>
> Jane, h
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:17:56AM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0700, nanog wrote:
> > Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded some edge routers to a new JunOS
> > release (possibly 5.3 rev 24)- and now our bgp sessions continually
> > reset with:
> >
> > Jul 10
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0700, nanog wrote:
> Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded some edge routers to a new JunOS
> release (possibly 5.3 rev 24)- and now our bgp sessions continually
> reset with:
>
> Jul 10 06:58:24 MST: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor X.X.X.X 3/3 (update
>m
Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.
Thanks for any help.
Jane
"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote:
> Good ol Frank, we can always count on you! Get a job, man.
I'm employed, but looking. I sent a resume to Booz Allen Hamilton last
week for the Senior Consultant position in NoVA. Do me a favor and talk
to HR and put in a good word for me.
Frank
One assumes 888.699.6398 (customer care line for data services) isn't what
you're looking for?
--On 10 July 2002 11:00 -0400 Pawlukiewicz Jane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
>
> I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hy
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:00:58AM -0400, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
> Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
>
> I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype.
Jane, had you actually read many of the postings on this
list before jumping right in and posti
"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote:
> Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys?
Admin Name... LEFRANC ANTOINE
Admin Email.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin Phone.. 33 5 45 35 76 30
Admin Fax 33 5 45 35 76 97
Tech Name Etienne Bernard
Tech Email.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:41:46PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> John Palmer wrote:
>
> > I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending
> > these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.
>
> Agreed, that is annoying.
>
> It appears to be the res
no
I'm not interested in hold or music over a phone line or whatever xo
thinks is what customers want to listen to.
Jane
Ian Cooper wrote:
>
> One assumes 888.699.6398 (customer care line for data services) isn't what
> you're looking for?
>
> --On 10 July 2002 11:00 -0400 Pawlukiewicz Jane
did
guess I'm just not as good at it as you are. Thanks for the info.
Second rule of nanog, you shall get the information you wish if you are
willing to:
1) ask
2) ignore flame
thanks again, the contact info is great.
Jane
"Majdi S. Abbas" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:00:58AM -040
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:26:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> There is an Apache worm out there, and it uses port 2001/udp to operate. You
> may wanna scan your own boxes for this open port.
Announced last week on BUGTRAQ and elsewhere.
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/279529
(an
lol!
Maybe I should've tried their website. who'dathought!
thanks for making me laugh.
"Hoffman, Sandra" wrote:
>
> One could also just go to http://www.xo.com... ;)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 July 2002 16:13
> To: Pawlukiewicz J
Eric A. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was seen to declaim:
> Nobody is forcing anybody to adopt it.
I think the point is people with non-compliant maillers delete mails
with attachments and no body on sight... sometimes, in an automated
rule. If you don't care that a percentage of your recipients don'
In a message written on Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:31:40PM +0100, David Howe wrote:
> I think the point is people with non-compliant maillers delete mails
> with attachments and no body on sight... sometimes, in an automated
> rule. If you don't care that a percentage of your recipients don't ever
Is this the same vulnerability that
was corrected with the 1.3.26 apache release?
Hello John,
Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 11:58:09 AM, you wrote:
JP> Is this the same vulnerability that
JP> was corrected with the 1.3.26 apache release?
Yes it is.
--
Allan Liska
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.allan.org
Thus spake "Leo Bicknell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> More to the point, if anyone bothered to look at a MIME/PGP message,
> that's all it is. Specifically, you'll see two parts:
>
> ] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> ] Content-Disposition: inline
> ] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-prin
"Leo Bicknell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> illuminated our understanding with:
> In a message written on Wed, Jul 10, 2002 David Howe wrote:
>> I think the point is people with non-compliant maillers delete mails
>> with attachments and no body on sight... sometimes, in an automated
>> rule. If you don't
On 08:53 AM 7/10/02, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>If people are throwing away MIME messages with a single "text/plain"
>section then they are firmly in the wrong. All of the "modern"
>text and GUI mailers display this properly, inline, as a plain old
>text message.
Per the recently posted stats fo
on 7/10/2002 10:53 AM Leo Bicknell wrote:
> More to the point, if anyone bothered to look at a MIME/PGP message,
> that's all it is. Specifically, you'll see two parts:
>
> ] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> ] Content-Disposition: inline
> ] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-print
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:11:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> You left out the MIME header that's actually causing the problem:
>
> ] Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
> ] protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0eh6TmSyL6TZE2Uz"
>
> My MUA understands multipa
Hello;
Can anyone tell me about the prospects of getting high speed (T1
level) connectivity in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico ? Anyone have any
experiences down there (with regards to the Internet) ?
Please feel free to contact me off list.
--
Regards
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, JC Dill wrote:
> What part of "it is rude to expect all members of a large and diverse
> mailing list to accept and parse your particular attachment format" isn't
> perfectly clear?
>
> Netiquette. It's been around a long time. You might try following it.
I have no pr
Can you provide any details as to why you had to "remove multicast" -
do you mean, remove MBGP ? Or is there more?
nanog wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:17:56AM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0700, nanog wrote:
>>
>>>Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded
I was wondering the importance of content to IP providers. Is it feasible to
go after a lot of hosting companies and such as a business model and greatly
skew your traffic ratios to hopefully reach a critical mass. I would think
at some point you would have so much content that people would star
Careful.
Unbalanced traffic can cause difficulties with peering. The eyeball
heavy networks will tend to peer with you but a long list of large
(route table) players will not.
--On Wednesday, 10 July 2002 13:49 -0400 "Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I was wondering the
I'm not sure if there is a better list for this but I know this reaches
some of the key audience members:).
Could anyone interested who can offer transit at the E-xchange facility at
200 Paul in SF contact me privately.
I'm looking for some transit for a new project.
Thanks
Scott
I agree, but as a regional player most large players won't peer with us
anyway from my discussions with them. Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong
people...:-)
-Original Message-
From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Owens, Shane (EP
Regarding electronic signatures.
The post was signed so you know for certain that I'm the knucklehead that
accidentally started the OT thread with my stupid joke. Arrogant or
not IMHO PGP sigs are a good business practice.
Signing post means only that you know with some certainty the bozo
to ho
I am interested in information on what software small, medium, and
large ISPs use for email services. When I refer to "email services" I
mean SMTP, POP, IMAP, web mail interfaces, and the back-end
administrative tools. Do many/most ISPs use big, expensive enterprise
tools for this? Piece their ow
Greetings.
Whether or not this is the appropriate forum, I'm going to vent. So thank
you for your patience.
I just had a Qwest DSL tech tell me to go f--- myself. Unfortunately his
buddies won't let me know who his management is. If anyone can refer me to
contact information for the Qwest me
Good day everyone,
I am seeing a strange problem on my network lately after adding a new terminal
server, a Lucent MAX TNT with madd modems in it. The symptoms are that users can
connect, they can ping and traceroute without any trouble. Anything that is TCP based
however is failing.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, JC Dill wrote:
>
[ SNIP ]
> To the people who so arrogantly pgp sign every email they send:
> Learn how to consider the importance of your words.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Andy Dills
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
> Regarding electronic signatures.
>
> The post was signed so you know for certain that I'm the knucklehead that
> accidentally started the OT thread with my stupid joke. Arrogant or
> not IMHO PGP sigs are a good business practice.
...when doing busi
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
> On 7/10/02 3:01 PM, "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Ah, and that's where the arrogance comment came from. You assume that the
> > members of nanog care. I'm not trying to call you an arrogant person, and
> > I recognize that you're
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:01:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> > Signing post means only that you know with some certainty the bozo
> > to hold responsible. I want to own up to my bozoesk, arrogant and
> > stupid ramblings.
>
> Ah, and that's where the arrogance comment came from. You
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> Can anyone please offer some advice or
> suggestions? I am too young to go bald :)
Yes, take the question to the Ascend-users list.
Tell them Frank Rizzo sent you. And if they won't help out, wrap a
ratchet round their heads.
Charles
> Cheers,
> J
My mail user agent verifies every pgp signature it reads. Automatically.
Isn't NANOG business??? I work for a big North American Network, have
been accused on being an Operator, and on rare occasions post things that
are on topic.
I'm confused ...
We have signing parties at NANOG and IETF to p
At 02:43 PM 7/10/2002 -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> I am seeing a strange problem on my network lately after adding a
> new terminal server, a Lucent MAX TNT with madd modems in it. The
> symptoms are that users can connect, they can ping and traceroute without
> any trouble. Anything
Which is why the "web of trust" exists. And why people do keysignings at NANOG
events. And why, at least on my mail client, the signature shows the email
address of its owner. If Scott spoofs and email from me and signs it with his
key, people will notice.
-C
> If people judge authenticity ba
> I just had a Qwest DSL tech tell me to go f--- myself.
How did you manage to talk to them to begin with? They had
some larger outage this morning and the 888 number just
returned a busy signal all morning (I guess that's what
you get from not setting up a simple 'network status'
page)
msg
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
> Your facts are correct, but you're missing one so your conclusion is wrong.
>
> You need to verify the signature in order to be able to rely on it.
> However, if one usually does not consistently sign their messages, then it
> becomes entirely pla
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:53:40 EDT, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> ] Content-Disposition: inline
> ] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> ] Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> ] Content-Disposition: inline
>
> If your mail
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:45:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> Yes, but once again you must consider content, given that most mail
> clients don't automatically verify signatures. Most of us will have to
And _therein_ lies the problem. And if the clued among us do not pressure
vendors
Thus spake "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, but once again you must consider content, given that most mail
> clients don't automatically verify signatures. Most of us will have to
> make a judgement call as to whether or not to bother to check the
> signature.
>
> The higher the degree of
NANOG:
I am curious if anyone has been working with HP Openview as an NMS. I've
been looking at it (Specifically the service call portion) and so far,
have not been impressed - I'm just not seeing the feature set I would
expect. Am I just being stubborn and not seeing the advantages of this?
>
Of course if a customer is down, it doesn't matter if you had the
greatest network status page with 24/7 realtime updates, as their only
method of finding out what is wrong is using the telephone to call you.
At the same time.
My cable provider has this issue. About once every 4 months (or ever
Might want to take a peek at OpenNMS...http://www.opennms.org I'm not
sure it'll be everything you dream of, but hey it's a hell of a lot
cheaper...
John
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Eric Whitehill wrote:
>
> NANOG:
>
> I am curious if anyone has been working with HP Openview as
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Eric Whitehill wrote:
> Am I wasteing my time with HP Openview? If you are using it, are you
> pleased?
What are you trying to accomplish? Many Internet organizations use
a combination of opensource and commercial tools (HPOV being the most
popular of
Also take a look at JFFNMS - http://jffnms.sourceforge.net/
It might be worth letting us know what your management requirements
are before dismissing OpenView ;-)
ta,
Matt.
- Original Message -
From: "John Kinsella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eric Whitehill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAI
Leo wrote;
>
> Equally, while I don't like the practice, if you haven't configured
> your mailer to show you text/plain over text/html (assuming you
> dislike html mail) in a multipart/alternative message then you're
> also behind the times. Don't complain about HTML mail when someone
> is also
Yes, removing MBGP from the neighbor statement. Sorry for the ambiguity.
bill
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:58:30PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Can you provide any details as to why you had to "remove multicast" -
> do you mean, remove MBGP ? Or is there more?
>
> nanog wrote:
>
> > On Wed
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Eric Whitehill wrote:
>
> NANOG:
>
> I am curious if anyone has been working with HP Openview as an NMS. I've
> been looking at it (Specifically the service call portion) and so far,
> have not been impressed - I'm just not seeing the feature set I would
> expect. Am I j
This conversation has minimal if any operational content, since the user
base of nanog uses a wide variety of mailers on an equally wide range of
OS's, it makes sense to use something viewable on all systems. Which seems
to be ASCII.
If anyone has anything new to add to this discussion, please s
Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan...
http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html
http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html
Is it time for a rolling blackout again?
--
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3
If you want to be proactive, filter this port across your backbone and you will
very quickly see what hosts have been compromised.. on the other hand individual
customers seem to use all their bandwidth so they tend to phone in pretty quick!
Steve
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> O
If you want to be really proactive... Just filter out port 80, and then
you can't get hacked...
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Stephen J. Wilcox
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 6:30 PM
To: Scott Francis
Cc: Jason Legate; [EMAIL P
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 06:19:39PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan...
>
> http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html
> http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html
>
> Is it time for a rolling blackout again?
Cal-ISO issues a "Stage 2" emergency.
Next targeted
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Aditya wrote:
> Cal-ISO issues a "Stage 2" emergency.
> Next targeted blackout block(s): 1.
The official word from NERC (North American Eletric Reliability Council):
"Generating resources are expected to be adequate to meet projected demand
for electricity in North America
On 01:30 PM 7/10/02, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>Thus spake "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Yes, but once again you must consider content, given that most mail
>> clients don't automatically verify signatures. Most of us will have to
>> make a judgement call as to whether or not to bother t
Hi, it's me again, Frank Rizzo. Earlier today, Susan E. Harris, PhD
revoked my posting privs for doing the unheard of: discussing personal
matters on this list. I've helped Jane out of a jam or two due to her
inability to use www.google.com, so I figured now would be a good time
to repay the fa
Be careful with this approach to gaining peering...While you may gain
some, you will probably end up paying more in monthly transit fees than its
worth. Speaking from experience here...Having worked for a national
player that took this approach (prior to my involvement with the company,
> Hi, it's me again, Frank Rizzo.
give us a break, children, would ya?
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/020710/telecoms_qwest_12.html
http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/10/news/companies/qwest/index.htm
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
At 06:42 PM 7/10/2002 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>If you want to be really proactive... Just filter out port 80, and then
>you can't get hacked...
That's simply not true! The command below will make your IP based network
completely secure from outside attack. You need to issue this command on
79 matches
Mail list logo
