On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Tony Hain wrote:
: Most of the responses to the anti-spam thread, and the comments to Itojun's
: IAB presentation in Miami about filtering, show that this community has been
: thoroughly infiltrated and is now as CLUELESS as the PSTN providers, and
: just as power hungry. The
RA> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:38:12 +
RA> From: Rainer Atkins
RA> Is it just me, or is it a clear indication that a thread is
RA> ending its useful life is when people start debating the
RA> merits of the analogies that have been posed rather than the
RA> original subject matter of the thread
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> On 17 Feb 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> > Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > and, if you want to see a particularly broken example, buy "internet
> > > service" from t-mobile gprs in the states, port 22 blocked, no smtp rela
On Feb 17, 2004, at 4:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:38:12 GMT, Rainer Atkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Is it just me, or is it a clear indication that a thread is ending its
useful life is when people start debating the merits of the analogies
that
have been posed rat
At 12:43 PM 2/17/2004, John Palmer wrote:
I hate to see government get involved in anything, but perhaps
some law holding PC owners responsible for SPAM that comes
from their unpatched machines AS LONG AS there is ample
notification to that user that their machine is compromised.
We don't need mor
> > is it okay for non-US person to send in letters?
>
> i got a response from .gov personnel - it is encouraged for non-US
> person to send in comments.
>
> itojun
>
wonderful.
--bill
Clearly I misinterpreted your comments; sorry for reading other parts of the
thread into your intent. The bottom line is the lack of a -scalable- trust
infrastructure. You are arguing here that the technically inclined could
select from a list of partial trust options and achieve 'close enough'.
W
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:43:39 -0600 (CST), Adi Linden wrote:
>I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
>PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
>these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
>
>There are valid reasons not to run ant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could a clueful person at ATDN (I've totally given up on Tech Support
who seem to think it's an Internet Explorer issue...) tell me who I'm to
call to get sensible technical support? :)
I don't think this is an issue clearning my IE cache will resolve:
--On 17 February 2004 16:19 -0800 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where they specifically form a club and agree to preclude the basement
multi-homed site from participating through prefix length filters. This
is exactly like the thread comments about preventing consumers from
running indepe
Alex Bligh wrote:
> Steve,
>
> --On 17 February 2004 17:28 -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In almost all circumstances, authentication is useful for one of two
> > things: authorization or retribution. But who says you need
> > "authorization" to send email? Autho
On 17 Feb 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > and, if you want to see a particularly broken example, buy "internet
> > service" from t-mobile gprs in the states, port 22 blocked, no smtp relay,
> > ... "walled garden" mentality from the get go.
>
> St
Steve,
--On 17 February 2004 17:28 -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In almost all circumstances, authentication is useful for one of two
things: authorization or retribution. But who says you need
"authorization" to send email? Authorized by whom? On what criteria?
Author
>>> and, if you want to see a particularly broken example, buy "internet
>>> service" from t-mobile gprs in the states, port 22 blocked, no smtp
>>> relay, ... "walled garden" mentality from the get go.
>> The ssh client for the Danger Sidekick is extremely popular, and I
>> don't think it would
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57760,00.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far
between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered
thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include
In the immortal words of Robert E. Seastrom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > and, if you want to see a particularly broken example, buy "internet
> > service" from t-mobile gprs in the states, port 22 blocked, no smtp
> > relay, ... "walled garden" mentality
Reasoning like this leads me to schemes that involve imposing cost. It
may be financial, it may be CPU cycles, it may be any of a number of
things. But it can't be identity based, except for recipient-based
whitelists, and they have their own disadvantages.
cost is good. the problem is c
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:48:18 +
Alex Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Some forms of filtering, which do occasionally prevent the customer
>from using their target application, are in general good, as the
>operational (see, on topic) impact of *not* applying tends to be
>worse
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and, if you want to see a particularly broken example, buy "internet
> service" from t-mobile gprs in the states, port 22 blocked, no smtp
> relay, ... "walled garden" mentality from the get go.
Strangely enough, the only complaints I've heard about t-m
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tony Hain" writes:
The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary interactions where new
applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally controlled model
would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
d
You are right. End station (PC) is SCP-equivalent in packet world. Will
Internet community allow or push for it? How to manage credentials, etc...?
Pain and more pain...
-Original Message-
From: Alex Bligh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:21 PM
To: Chen,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex Bligh writes:
>b) The real problem here is that there are TWO problems which interact.
> It is a specific case of the following general problem:
> * A desire for any to any end to end connectivity using the
> protocol concerned => filter free internet
--On 17 February 2004 16:10 -0600 "Chen, Weijing"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sound like an any to any end to end signaling/control mechanism with
authentication capabilities. Smell fishy (packet version of dial tone?)
Since when had dialtone got end-to-end signalling/control? My POTS line
does
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> new $25 million data center including some building layout diagrams
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > Bad timing, I'd seriously have recommended anyone doing this to have gone to
> > NANOG and the NOT
Sound like an any to any end to end signaling/control mechanism with
authentication capabilities. Smell fishy (packet version of dial tone?)
-Original Message-
From: Alex Bligh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 3:48 PM
To: Tony Hain; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alex
--On 17 February 2004 12:17 -0800 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[with apologies for rearrangement]
The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary interactions where new
applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally controlled model
would have prevented IM, web, sip applic
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tony Hain"
writes:
> >The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary
> interactions where new
> >applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally
> controlled model
> >would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
> >deployed.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:38:12 GMT, Rainer Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Is it just me, or is it a clear indication that a thread is ending its
> useful life is when people start debating the merits of the analogies that
> have been posed rather than the original subject matter of the thre
> The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary interactions where new
> applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally controlled model
> would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
> deployed. If there are any operators out there who still understand the
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tony Hain" writes:
> >
> >The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary interactions where new
> >applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally controlled model
> >would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
> >deployed.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tony Hain" writes:
>
>
>The Internet has value because it allows arbitrary interactions where new
>applications can be developed and fostered. The centrally controlled model
>would have prevented IM, web, sip applications, etc. from ever being
>deployed. If there a
I hate to see government get involved in anything, but perhaps
some law holding PC owners responsible for SPAM that comes
from their unpatched machines AS LONG AS there is ample
notification to that user that their machine is compromised.
Also, ISP's should be held responsible for allowing unpatc
> > As I mentioned yesterday, the DoC is looking for public comment on IPv6.
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports.html
> >
> > Specifically toward the end they ask:
> > In some instances, government has responded to concerns over potential
> > "chicken and egg" problems by playing an active role
Is it just me, or is it a clear indication that a thread is ending its
useful life is when people start debating the merits of the analogies that
have been posed rather than the original subject matter of the thread?
Or, maybe a thread is exhausted when the analogies start to crop up.
_
1700+ attempts from one IP address to send mail today via one of my servers.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mark Turpin; Roy
Subject: RE: Open, anonymous services and
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Trojaned PCs and zombie proxies relaying spam are like cold
> sores; they don't kill anyone, they just make things mildly
> uncomfortable, so we numb them over, and go about our
> business like normal, even if that includes allowing the
> infection t
Well at least they are somewhat DNS responsible in that they seperate their
user IP space well. SO that it can be blocked. the really annoying ISPS's use
stupid things like DSL1234.isp.com And such.
Of course doing this does block those 1 in 100 people runing a server on their
DSL line and
Most of the responses to the anti-spam thread, and the comments to Itojun's
IAB presentation in Miami about filtering, show that this community has been
thoroughly infiltrated and is now as CLUELESS as the PSTN providers, and
just as power hungry. The current ISPs have the opportunity to turn the
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:
> I am not sure it will take any major coordinated effort. For many outbreak
> incidents, the CDC would respond in the U.S., other agencies would respond
> elsewhere.
To perform a traceback in the US the CDC works with hospitals,
doctors, etc. since they h
> Recently, Daniel Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The *truly* unfortunate fact is lots of ISPs like to do things like throw up
> firewall rules and then expect other people to clean up after the real
> problems they are simply evading.
>
> Consider this: A pathogen is developed that kills any
Well they accept mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] but they certainly don't do
anything about it. I have sent numerous complaints to that address with
absolutely nothing happening to fix the problem. The address is a black
hole.
Roy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PR
On 2004-02-17T11:56-0600, Mark Turpin wrote:
) On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:
) > And on the other hand, it is the CDC that would perform an outbreak
) > isolation, not the restaurant staff.
) I think we're both in agreement that until * starts saying "If I
) don't stop this today, it wil
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:
> paid regularly, or their budgets are kept low, etc. Many will have RFC 2142
> contacts, but appear to discard incoming mail. Some, such as Charter
> Communications, do not even have these mandatory addresses (mail is not
> accepted for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that the winter NANOG meeting had a panel session about
IPv6
futures etc. I have been told by Doug Montgomery from NIST, who
attended the session, that Tony
Hain (from Cisco) pointed out that DoC has an RFC out on this topic and
suggested that interested
parties find the call and
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> new $25 million data center including some building layout diagrams
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Bad timing, I'd seriously have recommended anyone doing this to have gone to
> NANOG and the NOTA forum and
Greetings - here's some information about the last NANOG meeting (and
thanks to Bob Stovall, Jason Russell, and Carol Wadsworth of Merit for
gathering the stats):
==
NANOG 30
Feb. 8-10, 2004
Miami, Florida
Host: Terremark
To
Bad timing, I'd seriously have recommended anyone doing this to have gone to
NANOG and the NOTA forum and tour.
They have the best data centre I've been in...
Steve
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Someone was recently looking for tips on data center design. If you have a
Someone was recently looking for tips on data center design. If you have a
look
at the following URL, they have a flash presentation with an overview of
their
new $25 million data center including some building layout diagrams
http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/static/hn_data_center
--Michael Dillon
We do block port 25 as suggested in earlier in the thread. Now the
problem is the spambots use our smarthost(s) to spew their garbage and the
smarthosts are blocked.
there is an easy if somewhat impractical anwswer ;~}
access-list network-egress
deny ip any any log
Think of all the bandwidth
49 matches
Mail list logo
