On Sat, 31 May 2003, Peter Lothberg wrote:
> Time2.Stupi.SE and Time4.Stupi.SE are both stratum-1 accessable through
> the Internet, tracable to UTC-SP (part of TAI) without use of GPS or slaving
> to CDMA (that slaves to GPS).
I was wondering about everyone using GPS-derived timing sources last
On Sat, 31 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only difference between routed and unrouted (note the difference
> between that and routable) is consensus. There is nothing inherent in the bits
> which prevents RFC1918 from being routed globally. There is no requirement
> to use RFC1918 for NA
> The desire for everyone to have a timing source that is tracable to
> a Cesium clock comes from the SONET standard. If you tie two SONET
> networks together, if they both don't have timing that's tracable to
> a Stratum 1 (PRS) source, they'll drift at the points where they
> interconnect and P
> Quartz < Rubidium < Cesium.
quartz < rubidium < cesium-beam < hydrogen < cesium-fontain
-P
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Jae
> ggli writes:
> >
> >
> >Also if you just need a high level of syncronization between the time on
> >all your hosts you can just deploy one standalone ntp server, sync it
> >against public time sources and get everything synced against that. its
>
The receiver do not need to be in the datacenter, there is this thing
called "the internet" that you can hook it up to.
> > >in every PoP to do measurements. In that case, the difficulty isn't in
> > >measuring one-way latency, it's in synchronizing the time on all the
> > >servers. And with f
>
> Why does 65/8 generate almost as many queries as 24/8?
because there are lots of cable and DSL users in those
prefix's
My cable at home is net-65
John Brown wrote:
> Operators within Net-24 (typically Cable Operators) would
> do good in setting up a AS112 anycasted DNS server within
> their networks.
Same with 68/8. A few large cable operators (Cox, Comcast, Charter,
RoadRunner, etc.) have netblocks in 68/8.
.
> Based on a 1,000,000 query
Operators within Net-24 (typically Cable Operators) would
do good in setting up a AS112 anycasted DNS server within
their networks.
Cable modem users tyically NAT their connections to allow
multiple machines at home to be "online". This causes
local hosts to generate junk traffic towards the gl
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Hi,
> seems some spammers are using one of my personal domains as the from field in
> their emails, the local-part being random so I cant easily block it.
>
> Has anyone any advice on tracking them down and making them stop?
>
> All I get are t
Hi, Stephen.
] seems some spammers are using one of my personal domains as the
] from field in their emails...
This is also happening to one of my domains. The spam advertised
two web sites, one in Brasil and the other in China. I attempted
to contact these folks, but the domain in China does
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > I'm tasked with coming up with an IP plan for an very large lab
> > > network. I want to maximize route table manageability and
> > > router/firewall log readability. I was thinking of building this
> > > lab with the following address sp
Are you an ISP (in the sense of terminates leased line type things)
in Exodus Dulles (aka Sterling)? If so, I'd like to ask you a few
questions off list.
Thanks.
--
Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PRO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I and a number of coworkers are getting similar bounces, except the
spammers are actually using our full email addresses as the from address.
The first few cases of this, I wrote off to things like KLEZ...but
recently I've gotten actual spam bounces where my work email
At 02:39 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> seems some spammers are using one of my personal domains as the from
> field in their emails, the local-part being random so I cant easily
> block it.
>
> Has anyone any advice on tracking them down and making the
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> seems some spammers are using one of my personal domains as the from
> field in their emails, the local-part being random so I cant easily
> block it.
>
> Has anyone any advice on tracking them down and making them stop?
Tactical baseball bat at
> Since all of the replies have been pretty close to the same (Use RFC1918
> ...etc), I'd like to rephrase it to answer a curiosity of mine.
The answers seemed correct, rephrasing wont change current systems or policies
to suit you!
> RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working
Hi,
seems some spammers are using one of my personal domains as the from field in
their emails, the local-part being random so I cant easily block it.
Has anyone any advice on tracking them down and making them stop?
All I get are the bounces, some include the original headers but that usuall
On Sat, 31 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2003, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
>
> > > White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular
> > > being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at
> > > easynet. Both lists quite clearly state
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> > White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular
> > being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at
> > easynet. Both lists quite clearly state how they build their lists and
> > what they are designed
20 matches
Mail list logo
