On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>
> >It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
> >relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL
> >for example could require ISPs to meet cer
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:13:31 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
>I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to
>my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations other
>than when I am connected to them. I have about 2 dozen e-mail
>accounts defined in outlook express
In the immortal words of Matthew Crocker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Given the way that most ISP "shared resource" machines (including but
hardly limited to DNS caching/recursi
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
>relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL
>for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before they are
>allowed direct connections.
Bob Bradlee wrote:
>
> Road-Runner pulled the same stunt with a chain of radio stations
> I have as clients. We went ON-AIR with a NEWS story, and
> recomended that everyone effected should call Roadrunner
> or AOL. AOL contacted me, verified the problem, and had my
> IP's whitelisted in a matt
It should be pointed put that the ISPs have their share of blame for the
quick-spreading worms, beause they neglected very simple precautions --
such as giving cutomers pre-configured routers or DSL/cable modems with
firewalls disabled by default (instead of the standard "end-user, let only
outgo
At 01:57 PM 28/08/2003 -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> The majority comply and are understanding.
and the rest?
There will always be troublesome customers, but the VAST majority have been
compliant. If they dont want to comply to something as reasonable as this,
At 03:48 PM 28/08/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote:
> > Unless AOL is downloading the
> >entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how do they know
> >which IPs are dynamic and which are static;)
>
> What would BGP tables tell you about internal routing and DNS ?
>
It's 216.161.123.79
If
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>
> >> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> >> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
> >
> > Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
> > (even temporarily) at someone's disk
I saw it on CNN but it sounds like it wasnt as bad as they wanted to make out..
frmo what I was told none of the major colos which are all in the East lost
utility and I dont know about stuff in the South which is where the power was
out.. seems theres not much of interest there from a netork
Does the IP address of your client's SMTP server have a reverse DNS entry
(PTR record) assigned to it?
It seems to be a new "best practice" to not accept e-mail from an IP address
that doesn't have a PTR record assigned. Furthermore, if those PTR records
indicate anything like "dial" "dns" "cabl
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> The majority comply and are understanding.
and the rest?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
At 11:47 PM 28/08/2003 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
connections has passed the dialup ones a few years ago. Dialup users also
cannot generate any
significant DDoS traffic even if combined by a factor of 1.
a)http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2003/papers.html#p75-kuzmanovic
b)Trinity v3/Stach
Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> At 02:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, Susan Zeigler wrote:
>
> >WTF. This IP is NOT dynamic. The client has had it for about two years.
>
> What is the IP address they are rejecting ?
>
> > Unless AOL is downloading the
> >entire routing pools from all ISPs on a daily basis, how
Damian Gerow wrote:
Or potentially an artifact of wanting more IP space from ARIN, as
opposed to
assigning a static IP to every user we have, even the ones that are only
connected for about an hour a month. But hey, that's just a minor detail.
Sorry for momentarily phasing to our local la-la
Selon "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
> > > and you, as the provider, want to deal
On Thursday 28 August 2003 04:24 pm, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 11:14 PM 28/08/2003 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >>I dont think this would work too well. The users who are infected often
> >>think something is wrong because their connection and computer are not
> >>working qu
Thus spake Petri Helenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/08/03 16:23]:
> >I dont think this would work too well. The users who are infected
> >often think something is wrong because their connection and computer
> >are not working quite right. So they disconnect / reconnect / reboot
> >so they burn t
At 11:14 PM 28/08/2003 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I dont think this would work too well. The users who are infected often
think something is wrong because their connection and computer are not
working quite right. So they disconnect / reconnect / reboot so they burn
throug
At 12:53 PM 8/28/2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use
> the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Look carefully at that question and find the logic error.
...
In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'I
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I dont think this would work too well. The users who are infected
often think something is wrong because their connection and computer
are not working quite right. So they disconnect / reconnect / reboot
so they burn through quite a few dynamic IP addresses along the way.
T
Paul wrote:
>this part, on the other hand...
>
>> he's put
>> *.*.*.* in, he's asking people not to use it anymore.
>
>...mystifies me. anyone who has read rfc1034 or rfc1035, even
>if they did not also read rfc2181 or rfc2136 or rfc2308, knows
>that
> That's why we must encourage all ISPSs to be good guys, because we don't
> want Government Regulators setting standards in these areas, do we?
if recent activity in the VoIP market is any indication, then we here
won't have much input as to when and how the ISP market gets regulated.
--
Paul V
At 12:54 PM 28/08/2003 -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> Alternatively, perhaps we could, instead, publish an INFECTED SYSTEMS
> blacklist
> based on such connections to a honeypot. Any system which made the correct
> request could then have it's address published via BGP or DNS for ISPs and
> the like t
We have been doing that. During quiet times our Customer Service Reps
(CSR) are calling infected users telling them
a) Their computer has been compromised. In its current state it can
potentially be taken over by others or other users can look at the contents
of their private files etc.
b) I
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Alternatively, perhaps we could, instead, publish an INFECTED SYSTEMS
> blacklist
> based on such connections to a honeypot. Any system which made the correct
> request could then have it's address published via BGP or DNS for ISPs and
> the like to do a
Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use
> the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Look carefully at that question and find the logic error.
...
In case you missed it, the customer purchased 'IP' service, not 'ISP mail
servic
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Rachael Treu wrote:
> Facing facts, people are _not_ patching their stuff, in spite of pervasive
> pleas and warnings from vendors and media geeks.
There need to be more serious consequences for not patching. Like, having
their ports turned down until they decide that patchi
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/li0s
> >
> > Neither is really an 'order' so much as a 'suggestion'.. either way, its
> > kind of inappropriate to make this suggestion without knowing how each
> > operator can or could apply a fix... that is my opinion atleast
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>If your ISP ... ... find another one.
Great in theory, but the market is imperfect. Even if money (and the
loss you'd incur from terminating your current ISP early) isn't the main
issue. Many countries, even those with
| David Diaz
| Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:35 PM
|
| Can anyone in London provide details on the outage... are any colos
| on generator?
| dave
|
Reuters is reporting the power as being restored.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3352971
Todd
--
Can anyone in London provide details on the outage... are any colos
on generator?
dave
Inline.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:01:16PM -0400, Sean Donelan said something to the effect of:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Steve Carter wrote:
> > The rate-limiters have become more interesting recently, meaning they've
> > actually started dropping packets (quite a lot in some cases) because of
>
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you don't
> like, find another one.
How do I know that?
As a hobby, I'm running a community site for an often misunderstood
sexual/lifestyle minority. Most of patrons would be very unhappy
> http://tinyurl.com/li0s
>
> Neither is really an 'order' so much as a 'suggestion'.. either way, its
> kind of inappropriate to make this suggestion without knowing how each
> operator can or could apply a fix... that is my opinion atleast.
The thing is - DHS told us so is the new favourite ex
> I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the
> window by AOL in this policy change is "be strict in what you send, and
> liberal in what you accept".
that policy was wiser when everyone who could get an internet connection
saw the merits of it. in an assymetric warf
I have RCN cable internet in Chicago and they recently implemented
blocking port 25 access outbound. They say that we should just use
their mail servers instead.
I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to
my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations ot
> Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does.
>
> Something like
>
> crocker.com. MX 65000 trusted-mx.crocker.com.
> MX 66000 untrusted-mx.crocker.com.
there are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx
priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like yo
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
(even temporarily) at someone's disk drive.
If your ISP violates your privacy or has a privacy policy you do
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > anyone else been asked to rate limit by the U.S. Department of Homeland
> > > Security?
> > Just about everyone with a large enough US office was asked by DHS, in a
> > public statement...
>
> Isnt there a difference between "we have been asked"
> As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate
> limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow?
no. nor those of today. the only way we're going to flatten the increase
of attack volume, or even turn it into a decrease, is with various forms of
admission co
Really good performance from where we sit in Salt Lake.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Bil Herd wrote:
> Anyone have positive or negative experiences with XO as a 'tier1'
> provider? We are re-evaluating our backbone connections and looking for
> new where appropriate.
>
> Bil Herd - INS
> > anyone else been asked to rate limit by the U.S. Department of Homeland
> > Security?
> Just about everyone with a large enough US office was asked by DHS, in a
> public statement...
Isnt there a difference between "we have been asked" and "we have been
ordered to"?
Alex
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> > Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
> > and you, as the provider, want to deal with the headache phone calls...
>
> Would it be fair to say that UUNET haven't been asked by Homeland Security
> to do th
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Shouldn't. There are privacy implications of having mail to be recorded
(even temporarily) at someone's disk drive.
--vadim
> > Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping
> > for distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would
> > get somewhat skewed, right?
using icmp to predict tcp performance has always been a silly idea; it
doesn't take any icmp rate limit policy change
I think the inherent mantra and wise philosophy that gets tossed out the
window by AOL in this policy change is "be strict in what you send, and
liberal in what you accept".
I'll gladly publish my dialup loozer list in a voluntary RBL so that
other sites won't be forced to accept mail from hit an
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 12:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:00:29 EDT, Matthew Crocker said:
How does this sound for a new mail distribution network.
Only a few problem here:
1) Bootstrapping it - as long as you need to accept legacy SMTP because
less than 90% o
Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
> access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
> for the services required.
Good idea. I'll start working on the SSH proxy tomorrow.
> -Matt
--Johnny
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
py.sacramento.ca.us>, Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
>eating some
>email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a
>mailing list that way, etc.
Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit customers
to 200 outgoing recip
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail
> servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some
> email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a
> mailing li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Demon announcement was interesting to me as a subscriber.
Historically Demon allocated static IP addresses to (nearly) all dial up
users.
For many businesses this was a cheap and effective way to have their own
email servers running. For those o
> Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP
> use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Trouble is with some ISPs you get more rejections when using their mail
servers than when havong your own, not to mention theirs eating some
email fro
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>There is no reason for a customer to have direct access to the net
Unless that's what they thought "Internet Access" was all about :-(
>so long as
>the ISP can provide appropriate proxies for the services required.
>I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Everything is logged
I have some policemen friends who will immediately add you to their Xmas
card list!
--
Roland Perry
At 12:39 PM 8/28/2003, you wrote:
> Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping for
> distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would get
> somewhat skewed, right?
Perhaps they'll come up with a more advanced system of
monitoring?
probally
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>ISPs would need to contact AOL, provide valid contact into and accept some sort
>of AUP (I shall not spam AOL...) and then be allowed to connect from their IPs.
>AOL could kick that mail server off later if they determi
Realistically, it doesn't need a hole to communicate. All it needs to do
is impersonate a player that doesn't mind dying alot. It can still
communicate
with it's "team-mates" using the built-in communications channels in the
game
and it can still use CS servers as a directory service. These ar
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port
For some, sure. Maybe even most. That doesn't mean all. Are you a
fairly small
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:04:09PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
> access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
> for the services required.
> It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:55:26PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> >
> > While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done
> > carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of
> > a common site that gets p
On 28 Aug 2003 16:07 UTC Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| AOL for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before
| they are allowed direct connections. ISPs would need to contact AOL,
| provide valid contact into and accept some sort of AUP (I shall not
| spam AOL...) and
"N. Richard Solis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, counter-to-counter service isn't always handled as luggage. In a
> few cases the package is hand-carried over to the cargo terminal where
> it's put on the next flight out. Then it's held for you at the
> destination, NOT put out on the
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 17:37, Steve Carter wrote:
> I speak for Global Crossing when I say that ICMP rate limiting has existed
> on the Global Crossing network, inbound from peers, for a long time ... we
> learned our lesson from the Yahoo DDoS attack (when they were one of our
> customers) back i
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> > Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
> > and you, as the provider, want to deal with the headache phone calls...
>
> Would it be fair to say that UUNET h
Again, I am not proposing a worm. Simply a cleaner that would neuter the
worm that connected. What I am proposing would _ONLY_ provide software
that,
if the connecting client chose to execute it, would neuter the worm on the
connecting client that executed it. Nothing that would worm to other
c
* Sean Donelan said:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Steve Carter wrote:
> > The rate-limiters have become more interesting recently, meaning they've
> > actually started dropping packets (quite a lot in some cases) because of
> > the widespread exploitation of unpatched windows machines.
>
> Yep, the
One possibility is that half-life servers are inherently directory services.
The list of connected players could be used to encode directory data for
the worm to attack.
Owen
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 8:50 PM -0400 Matt Martini
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've scanned my Netflow logs for act
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:00:29 EDT, Matthew Crocker said:
> How does this sound for a new mail distribution network.
Only a few problem here:
1) Bootstrapping it - as long as you need to accept legacy SMTP because
less than 90% of the mail is being done the new way, you have a hard sell
in getting
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
for the services required.
It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done. There is
a stigma against proxing because of the
This brings up a more general point about the dangers of blocking
everything under the sun. When you limit yourself to just a few
chokepoints, its easier for those who would stifle communications
to shut things down.
This is a very dangerous path to take. Not that we shouldn't consider
some sort o
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:31 AM, Petri Helenius wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup
I've only shipped a few (moderately) heavy things on short notice in my
career. Almost all of those involved FedEx because it was simple and
hassle-free. If we're talking about shipping palettes of equipment then
I agree with the use of air cargo. It wasn't entirely clear from the
first po
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:07 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
you "g
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Steve Carter wrote:
> The rate-limiters have become more interesting recently, meaning they've
> actually started dropping packets (quite a lot in some cases) because of
> the widespread exploitation of unpatched windows machines.
Yep, the amount of ICMP traffic seems to be i
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
>you "graduate" to running your own smtp server.
I'd say having a "fixed connection" (eg DSL, T1) mainly because "we know
where you live".
Dial-ups are whole
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done
> carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of
> a common site that gets pinged whenever someone wants to test to see
> if their connection went down or if i
I can have some sympathy for the customer in this case...But...
Do you consider the definition of 'bad traffic to include spam?
To me, this is really simple. (as usual, IANAL, BUT...) It is 'theft of
services' on the part of:
a) the person(s) who wrote and released the virus, and
b) contri
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
> and you, as the provider, want to deal with the headache phone calls...
Would it be fair to say that UUNET haven't been asked by Homeland Security
to do the rate limitin
- Original Message -
From: "David Lesher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "nanog list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:22
Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
>
> Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> >
> >
> > > Shouldn't customers that purchase
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
> > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
> > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing tra
-On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-wrote:
->
-> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
-> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
-
-At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections
-withou
Matthew Crocker wrote:
SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
go direct to root-servers.net and there is no reason why a dialup user
should be sending mail directly to AOL, or any mail server for
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen
> J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >BT in the UK who as the incumbent are the only
> >provider of things like unmetered dialup..
>
> I have a 19.99 a month unmetered dialup from Freeserve (based on
> FR
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
>
> applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
> you "graduate" to running your o
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
applying that standard just how large do you have to get before
you "graduate" to running your own smtp server. "I'm sorry w
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen
J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>BT in the UK who as the incumbent are the only
>provider of things like unmetered dialup..
I have a 19.99 a month unmetered dialup from Freeserve (based on
FRIACO). There must be others.
--
Roland Perry
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail
>server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port 25
>connections
>on our dialup and DSL pool.
[snip]
>there is no reason wh
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Gordon wrote:
>
>
> Of the DDOS attacks I have had to deal with in the past year I have seen
> none which were icmp based.
> As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate limiting
> icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow?
The folks doing t
>
> SMTP & DNS should be run through the servers provided by the ISP for
> the exact purpose. There is no valid reason for a dialup customer to
^ OH YES THERE IS
(at least to a different resolver other than yours)
> go direct to root
At 09:26 AM 8/28/2003, you wrote:
It takes some education to the customers, but after they understand why,
most are receptive.
Especially when they get DOS'ed.
We have been rate limiting ICMP for a long time, however, it is only
recently that the percentage limit has been reached and people have s
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:48:50AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> they [customers] expect a bit of loss when transiting a peering
> circuit or public fabric, and if the loss is only of icmp they
> tend to not care.
Um, since when? My customers expect perfection and if they don't get
it, they're gonn
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Nipper, Arnold wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> > mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
>
> At least here in DE there are
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
Also depends on how much clue said ISP has. I have a DSL-like connection
at home from a large LEC/ISP, but half the time their m
On Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:18 PM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs
> mail server as a smart host for outbound mail?
At least here in DE there are resellers of DTAG which offer DSL connections
without any SMTP
> Sometime mid last week, one of my clients--a state chapter of
> a national
> association--became unable to send to all of their AOL
> members. Assuming
> it was simply that AOLs servers were inundated with infected emails, I
> gave it some time. The errors were simply "delay" and "not
> delivere
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, AT&T, Comcast - and
in
Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom
(who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation.
Here's another tale
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, AT&T, Comcast - and in
>Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom
>(who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation.
Here's another t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Provo writes
> AOL's specific definition is point 12 on their
>postmaster FAQ (http://postmaster.info.aol.com/faq.html).
That's their definition of "Residential IP", not "Dynamic IP".
> if you have a server on
>a residential connection, check your service a
On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Is anyone having this problem on a unit with the mad-2 cards?
We are not experiencing the reboots/lock ups on our APX 8000.
We are using the Ethernet card with the dongle. E-100-V I think.
We are using the Channelized DS-3 card
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
