Temkin, David wrote:
We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced
ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings
through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After
contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install th
Hi all. Can anyone tell me if the 8 port IMA network module is
supported in the 3640s? I used the Compatibility tool, and it said I'd
be good with 12.2.11 YT but I'm having no success.
Any advice is appreciated.
*Mar 1 00:00:05.211: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type BD in
bay 2
Cis
Even tho this isn't Cisco TAC, provided you have a valid CCO account,
go to:
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/front.x/Support/HWSWmatrix/hwswmatrix.cgi
charles
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 07:32:19PM -0500, Ejay Hire wrote:
>
> Hi all. Can anyone tell me if the 8 port IMA network module is
> supporte
Ejay Hire wrote:
Hi all. Can anyone tell me if the 8 port IMA network module is
supported in the 3640s? I used the Compatibility tool, and it said I'd
be good with 12.2.11 YT but I'm having no success.
Any advice is appreciated.
*Mar 1 00:00:05.211: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type
Once upon a time, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of
> trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal
> traffic through unhindered?
Well, when we used the policy routing example from the Cisco advisory
> Once upon a time, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of
> > trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal
> > traffic through unhindered?
>
> Well, when we used the policy routing example from the Cis
Seems like QWEST doesn't have any edge ACL's in place to deal
with this lovely worm issue.
Count Source Prexix, rounded up to a /16
144 208.46.0.0
199 65.114.0.0
347 208.45.0.0
462 65.118.0.0
486 65.119.0.0
702
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> perhaps a change in vendors is in order? I can't see why people would lie
> about this, or why they'd listen to the 'request' from DHS in the first
> place ;( Oh well.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57804,00.html
Mike Fisher, Penns
Not sure how many places you intend to post this or related
messages, but if you've got a problem vote with your money.
Whining to NANOG and a slew of other mailing lists and still
giving money to Qwest seems silly to me...
Likewise, the Qwest folks likely aren't quite as clueless as
you've attempt
Sorry to those that may be on other lists.
Given general operational nature, I posted to NANOG, so that:
1. money can talk, others will see one view of this provider
2. operationally maybe something will get done
3. policy wise maybe this provider will change its policy
4. Qwest said their peop
> The other thing I learned from QWEST IP-NOC was that it seems
> managment decided *NOT TO* filter packets related to this worm
> issue at the edge..
an isp of any non-trivial size, has one or more customers who
are either in the security business or in security research.
also ip behavior bu
At 11:36 PM 8/28/2003, Danny McPherson wrote:
Not sure how many places you intend to post this or related
messages, but if you've got a problem vote with your money.
Whining to NANOG and a slew of other mailing lists and still
giving money to Qwest seems silly to me...
Agreed...
Likewise, the Qwe
> I dunno... in my experience, is pretty clue-free.
when folk want to pay $50/mb, how much clue do we think
isps can pay for, especially to deal with peak clue loads
such as this last week or two?
yes, money talks. but in many ways.
randy
Susan,
> It just ticks me off because I know there are a lot of
> others who will be in this boat.
Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a
single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that
occasionally are blocked because either the block is ma
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 09:51 PM, John Brown wrote:
Given general operational nature, I posted to NANOG, so that:
1. money can talk, others will see one view of this provider
Don't talk with other peoples money, talk with your own. If
you plan to post to NANOG, it'd be a wise assumption
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:29:42PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> However, trying to be pragmatic, this is a situation that will
> eventually solve by itself: Since having {Pacific Bell | your ISP} do
> anything about it is not an option, when these customers are trying to
> email to {AOL | some ISP} a
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > perhaps a change in vendors is in order? I can't see why people would lie
> > about this, or why they'd listen to the 'request' from DHS in the first
> > place ;( Oh well.
>
>
> http://www.wired.com
Yo All!
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> Indeed, there are. I have numerous small customers that have either a
> single static IP or a /29 block from {Pacific Bell | your ISP} and that
> occasionally are blocked because either the block is marked as
> residential or the reverse lookup con
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> when folk want to pay $50/mb, how much clue do we think
> isps can pay for, especially to deal with peak clue loads
> such as this last week or two?
>
> yes, money talks. but in many ways.
Doesn't work this way. It is much better to have one clueful g
Vadim Antonov wrote:
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-
On Thursday 28 August 2003 22:00, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 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 w
Anyone that works for Qwest (Spirit of Service.HA HA HA HA HA) and can
actually stop having your clueless NOC personnel from calling me at the
flipping early hours of the morning because your non working proactive
monitoring system keeps opening pro active tickets. No one has yet to
verify
I've just upgraded a Cisco 7206 for a customer with a DS3 and we're
now ready to take full routes. No one is answering at support, email has
gone unanswered for thirty minutes - if someone at the Sprint NOC is
awake please call Neal or Mike at 402-426-6136 - we'd really like to get
this done b
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its
much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of
users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
Simon Lockhart wrote:
>
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 29 21:47:55 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
I apologize to the list for including a subject line in all caps regarding
my attempt to contact someone at Qwest to fix this "pro active monitoring"
issue I have.
I hope that someone from that network contacts me since all other normal
channels of communication that they provide to their cust
I setup a 'real time' report by AS to assist networks
in finding infected systems. The URL:
http://www.dshield.org/asreport.php
This report is intended for automated parsing, so it comes as a simple
tab delimited table with brief 'usage' header. You can filter by target
port, protocol and AS.
It seems that PayPal is off-the-air. We're seeing all connections die via
uunet and sprint routes. Anyone know what's going on?
-John
--
John Ferriby - PGP Key: www.ferriby.com/pgpkey
Fingerprint: 3B78 10AF A1B2 20D0 A5D9 983F 96FF D5BB CF11 BA97
I dont think so...been doing a few paypal transactions since around 6 AM,
actually just finished one a few minutes ago, and actually just logged into
my account before sending this out
It's not paypal
Rico
John Ferriby writes:
It seems that PayPal is off-the-air. We're seeing al
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, John Ferriby wrote:
>
> It seems that PayPal is off-the-air. We're seeing all connections die via
> uunet and sprint routes. Anyone know what's going on?
>
It may just have been a temporary thing, I am able to reach the site fine
from here, and it traces through UUNET
>
>
> It seems that PayPal is off-the-air. We're seeing all connections die via
> uunet and sprint routes. Anyone know what's going on?
Get a new transit provider?
NetBSD$ telnet www.paypal.com 80
Trying 65.206.229.16...
Connected to www.paypal.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET /
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 09:45, John Ferriby wrote:
> It seems that PayPal is off-the-air. We're seeing all connections die via
> uunet and sprint routes. Anyone know what's going on?
I recall they were going offline from 12:30am to 3:00am Pacific Time for
maintenance. I'm not seeing any proble
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Maybe if PacBell (and others) actually disciplined their more out of
control DSL customers then other ISPs would not feel the need to do it
for them.
It doesn't matter. A large percentage of open proxies are on dynamic
DSL. Since a lot of ISPs will not handle proxy reports an
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> 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
Just for your information:
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, the root name server traditionally based in
Stockholm, Sweden, has taken its first step outside the country, by
deploying a clone in Helsinki, Finland, in cooperation with FICIX, the
Finnish Internet Exchange. The Helsinki clone uses anycast and is
a
Sprint's support contact structure is rather specialized, rather
than one-size-fits-all.
http://www.sprint.net/contacts.html
Could you kindly verify that you've tried the right place before
sending NANOG to General Quarters?
Thanx
> I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:14:49AM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote:
> I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
Uh, puck is fine.
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=sprint
> channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its
> mu
>> Michel Py writes
>> eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment
>> size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc.
> Roland Perry wrote:
> Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit
> customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping
> spamme
Michel Py wrote:
If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line they
should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't.
The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle
abuse complaints either. Just what do they do for their customers? I'm
curious.
Anyone know what the source of the recent increase in scans of port 554 are?
http://isc.incidents.org/port_details.html?port=554
I cant find any related virus/worms using this?
Maybe its nothing, just some abuse complaints we got from port 554 scanning...
Steve
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL
>> line they should provide a top-notch smarthost, which most
>> don't.
> Jack Bates wrote:
> The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually
> don't handle abuse complaints either.
True. sigh.
> Just
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> That was a ccourt order, not much any US based corporation can do about
> that, eh? Oh, yeah, and it didn't help stop any child pornographers, all
> it did was hide their tracks from the authorities :(
I suspect most ISPs in the US will follow l
At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
> eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
> unwanted bandwidth across your network..
The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you use', not what
so
(08-28) 20:31 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The FBI has identified a teenager as the author of a damaging virus-like
infection unleashed on the Internet and plans to arrest him early Friday, a
U.S. official confirmed Thursday.
The 18-year-old, whose name and hometown was not immediately available, w
Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry
pair between two buildings connected to the same CO?
When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about.
-jay
Neither do we. Could you include some more details?
-Greg
-Original Message-
From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dry pair
Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry
pair between two buil
Have you tried ordering it as an "alarm circuit"?
Also, it seems like telcos are less willing to provide dry pair anymore.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Austad, Jay wrote:
:>
:>Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry
:>pair between two buildings connected to the sam
554 is a port associated with rtsp...
There is a real helix server vulnerability that may be associated with
those probes...
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/75/334900/2003-08-19/2003-08-25/0
yeah:
http://www.k-otik.com/exploits/08.25.THCREALbad.c.php
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:06:10AM -0400, Roland Perry wrote:
> Here's another tale of undeliverable email. It seems that [at least] one
> of those organisations you mention assigns IP addresses for its ADSL
> customers from the same blocks as dial-up. Which means that
> organisations using MAPS-D
At 08:37 AM 8/29/2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
If ISPs don't want people to run SMTP servers on their DSL line
theyshould provide a top-notch smarthost, which most don't.
The one's that don't provide a top-notch smarthost usually don't handle
abuse complaints either. Just what do the
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010823.html
Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
Neither do we. Could you include some more details?
-Greg
-Original Message-
From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dry pair
Does anyone know
>> Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to patch through a dry
>> pair between two buildings connected to the same CO?
>>
>> When I called to order one, no one knew what I was talking about.
Try ordering a LADS circuit (they come in 2 or 4 pair).
Dave
He's looking for two wires between two buildings with no switching
equipment on them. You'll have better luck if you ask for an "Alarm
Pair", but everyone's nomenclature is different.
-Ejay
-Original Message-
From: Pendergrass, Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 20
I also tried asking for an Alarm Circuit. I even explained to them what it
was, but they still didn't understand. All of the people I talked to
wondered why in the world I would want a pair with no dialtone. Too bad a I
can't just bribe a qwest tech with a few beers to patch it through for me.
Order it as an "alarm circuit"... At least that's how VZ recognizes it in
NY.
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dry pair
Does anyone know to go about getting Qwest or a CLEC to pa
Perhaps because smart engineers are sticking $50 CellPipe 50S units on
each end and running 2.3mbps across them for less than a third the cost
of same-co T1?
-Original Message-
From: Rick Ernst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:19 AM
To: Austad, Jay
Cc: [EMAIL PR
On donderdag, aug 28, 2003, at 20:10 Europe/Amsterdam, Paul Vixie wrote:
Play with DNS MX records like QMTP does.
here are at least two problems with this approach. one is that an mx
priority is a 16 bit unsigned integer, not like your example. another
is that spammers do not follow the MX prot
It's genrally called a lads circuit.
joelja
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
>
> Neither do we. Could you include some more details?
>
> -Greg
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 August 2003 17:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
> But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or
> more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the address
> of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records for the
> domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email addres
Good luck getting one from anything but and old-bell. New LECs tend to
think only in terms of the switch side, since the last mile belongs to
the ILEC anyway. Even the ones that know it don't want to support it,
as they can't do any remote testing when it dies, requiring local
"wire and cable"
In Canada they are sometimes referred to as c-loops. You could try that...
But, they are hard to get.. And impossible to get repaired :).
Mark
--
Mark Segal
Director, Network Planning
FCI Broadband
Tel: 905-284-4070
Fax: 416-987-4701
http://www.fcibroadband.com
Futureway Communications In
> trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only
> accept connections from IPs it trusts.
Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into
reinventing the wheel, but what happened to consideration of
SMTP authentication?
>> It's genrally called a lads circuit.
BTW, LADS == Local Area Data Service.
Dave
>>
>> joelja
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Neither do we. Could you include some more details?
>> >
>> > -Greg
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Austad, Jay
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Omachonu Ogali wrote:
|>trusted-mx.crocker.com uses DNSRTTL (Real Time Trust List) to only
|>accept connections from IPs it trusts.
|
|
| Hate to break up your envisionary experiences and insight into
| reinventing the wheel, but what happened to consid
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one
>or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the
>address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records
> >But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one
> >or more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to check the
> >address of the SMTP server they're talking to against the DNS records
> >for the domain in the sender's address. Then customers who use an email
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=3359768
One in three North American companies are estimated to have had at least
some of their computers infected since Blaster emerged in early August,
according to new data from Internet security laboratory ICSA.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP
> server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for
> email?
Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL
Here is the Qwest Tariff (assuming your in Colorado.)
http://tariffs.uswest.com:8000/docs/TARIFFS/Colorado/COAC/co_a_c_s007p00
1.pdf#USW-TOC00
See sheet 16, near the bottom of the page... It looks like you want an
NB3 circuit with DC continuity.
-R
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMA
[Note: I posted something else on this topic, but it doesn't appear to have
made it through yet...]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: August 29, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fun new po
I travel around. I read my email by POP3/IMAP, I use local ISP's SMTP
server for outgoing - surely that means I can't use my own domain for
email?
Your ISP should support SMTP_AUTH with TLS for you. You would continue
to use their mail servers no matter where you are or how you are
connected to
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
> And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if
> the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that
> instead."?
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
--
Mikael Abrahamss
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 29, 2003 3:44 PM
> To: Vivien M.
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
>
> > And what do you do if you're not the admin for the re
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their
users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam because your user
had a bad password is not a good prospect.
-Jack
At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
> Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the same relay always.
And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what about if
the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail package. Use that
instead."?
Either the webmail solution meet
You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
And if the "service provider" is your employer/educational
institution? You
quit your job? Drop out of school? Swallow your pride and suffer with
webmail?
Spend $19.95 getting a dialup account for an ISP with a clue and use
thei
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
> Sent: August 29, 2003 3:58 PM
> To: Vivien M.
> Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
>
>
>
> >>
> >> You switch service provider or give
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JC Dill
> Sent: August 29, 2003 3:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Fun new policy at AOL
>
>
>
> At 12:32 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
>
> > > Time to switch to SMTP AUTH and use the
At 12:45 PM 8/29/2003, Vivien M. wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Vivien M. wrote:
>
> > And what do you do if you're not the admin for the relay? And what
> > about if the admin tells you "This is why we installed some webmail
> > package. Use that instead."?
>
> You switch service provider or give
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:47:50 CDT, Jack Bates said:
>
> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >
> > You switch service provider or give them a whack with the cluebat.
> >
>
> Some providers don't support auth do to the insecure passwords their
> users have. Having your server opened up to relay spam beca
You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. Let's say you work at
someplace.edu. You want to send mail from home. With the SPF-type
schemes
being discussed, your mail MUST come from someplace.edu's server.
If someplace.edu won't set up an SMTP AUTH relay, what do you do? Your
dialup account will
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 29, 2003 4:16 PM
> To: Vivien M.
> Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fun new policy at AOL
>
> Port forward 127.0.0.1:25 through to someplace.edu:25 using SSH. Or
> VPN. Or ..
Is this being added to a bind 9 rewrite? If so, when can we
expected it to be released? :)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:47:58PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > But how about this: in addition to MX hosts, every domain also has one or
> > more MO (mail originator) hosts. Mail servers then get to c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Omachonu
Ogali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>In which case, the telecommuters should use their organization's
>mail servers with SMTP authentication (yes, authentication, not
>pop-before-smtp).
I'm a telecommuter, I'm also a freelance, so my organisation is "me". I
l
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>From what I recall there is no guarentee that the Qwest
>tarrif for NB3 is actually a straight-through copper pair
>[section 7.3.1.B.2.a.(4)]... note the restriction of
>signaling frequency
>see the Terms & Conditions in section 7.3.1.B.2.a.(2).
By requesting a c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JC Dill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>The FBI has identified a teenager as the author of a damaging virus-like
>infection unleashed on the Internet and plans to arrest him early Friday, a U.S.
>official confirmed Thursday.
It always worries me when law enforcement
Then why not just pay a Virtual Mail hosting company to host a mail server
for you via Imail or one of the other virtual email service packages out
there. It is very inexpensive most of the time. That way you have the
flexibility of having your own mail server, plus (most of the time) the
server i
I have been following the thread very intensly since I read the article that
William Warren posted.
I also have two locations that I wish to connect, and we were looking at
802.11b with cantennas. This may not work because it looks like there are a
lot of trees between the two locations, and the
JC Dill wrote:
Either the webmail solution meets your needs, or you need to obtain
service from a company that offers a solution that meets your needs.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Or people implement a protocol that doesn't break existing uses of the
system (let's not forget the issues
> At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
> > > eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
> > > unwanted bandwidth across your network..
> > The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you
> >
Or possibly a scare tactic so the real offender will relax.
Luke
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Roland Perry
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blaster author identified, about to be arrested...
I
Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JC Dill
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >The FBI has identified a teenager as the author of a damaging virus-like
> >infection unleashed on the Internet and plans to arrest him early Friday, a U.S.
> >official confirmed Thursday.
>
> It alwa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Then why not just pay a Virtual Mail hosting company to host a mail server
>for you via Imail or one of the other virtual email service packages out
>there. It is very inexpensive most of the time. That way you have the
>flexi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the provider allows the user to pick an insecure password, and then
complains that they can't support a security measure because of their poor
policy choices/enforcement?
You have an easy way to change password enforcement of an existing user
base? Dealing with people
> Or possibly a scare tactic so the real offender will relax.
Maybe he is hiding with the WMD ;)
Neil.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Crist Clark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>---> Scanning mail for operational content...
>-^H\^H|^H/^H-^H\
>---> Operational content: 0.00%
Next time one of your key operational staff is [mistakenly] arrested for
possession [aka hosting] of some illicit material o
> > Where is he "now" and why won't he remove himself to "somewhere a long
> > way away", overnight? Obviously, there is something more complex
> > happening here.
"don't give that lamer credit for my code. Doh!"
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:19:28 CDT, Jack Bates said:
> I wouldn't recommend a policy change like that for any user base over
> 10,000.
So you're saying that because you've got too many users with dumb passwords,
that's justification for not fixing it? ;)
/Valdis (and yes, we're in the middle of a
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Patrick Felt wrote:
>
> I have been following the thread very intensly since I read the article that
> William Warren posted.
>
> I also have two locations that I wish to connect, and we were looking at
> 802.11b with cantennas. This may not work because it looks like ther
>How would an alarm company get around this? Would Qwest need
>to run copper into the neighborhood if any one of the people
>purchased an alarm? If not, how would the alarm company get
>the signal pushed through the fiber, and could that be done
>with the dsl signal?
Most home/small busines
100 matches
Mail list logo
