> > ... i'm not a defendant, just a named co-conspirator.
>
> Hah? Are they also naming individually all the dns operators that installed
> bind patch and specifically enabled it so that wildcards would not work?
the lawsuit doesn't mention the bind patch. they seem to be upset about my
work
[Mass reply]
Correct, I'm currently with Verio, playing ISP.
Yes, I believe that this confirms that John thinks that engineers are
indeed
slaves. But I've known that for years.
Please disregard the "rock star" crapola. More hype that I don't
want...
I'm just an engineer, like you, but slight
> For that matter why don't they just name entire NANOG! I remember what a
> reaction there was on the list and 100% of those responding were purely
> negative of Verisign wildcards.
Hmm,
I remember a whole lot of really irrational and really unhelpful
replies. Granted, there were some well tho
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
>
> not at the moment. i'm not a defendant, just a named co-conspirator.
Hah? Are they also naming individually all the dns operators that installed
bind patch and specifically enabled it so that wildcards woul
FYI: Cnet just published an interview with him this morning entitled "routing's rock
star"
see:
http://news.com.com/Routing%27s+rock+star/2008-1035_3-5236759.html?tag=nl
-Original Message-
From: John Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:00 PM
To: Wayne E. Bou
> Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
not at the moment. i'm not a defendant, just a named co-conspirator.
I believe that Tony has escaped that fate... (although the phrasing of the
press release could lead one to believe that the engineering team aren't
really people, but some form of property that was "sold" to Cisco ;-)
/John
At 5:46 PM -0700 6/17/04, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>So does this mean
I was under the impression the Mr. Li had left Procket some time ago and
does not work for either company currently.
Chris Burton
Network Engineer
Walt Disney Internet Group: Network Services
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential,
intended only for the use of the indiv
I believe Tony left the company in March.
http://att.com.com/Procket+loses+star+engineer/2100-1033_3-5178211.html
Last I heard, he was at Verio.
Justin Ryburn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Curran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
So does this mean that Tony Li now works for Mr. Chambers again? :-)
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:21:58PM -0700, John Curran wrote:
>
> "SAN JOSE, Calif., June 17, 2004 - Cisco Systems, Inc., today announced a definitive
> agreement to purchase the intellectual property, a majority of the enginee
Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
yes. I almost missed this one.
There are few entities for which i have more contempt than ICANN.
But verisign heads the more contempt than ICANN list by several
orders of magnitude.
in my estimation it would like to control telecom by cont
"SAN JOSE, Calif., June 17, 2004 - Cisco Systems, Inc., today announced a definitive
agreement to purchase the intellectual property, a majority of the engineering team
and select assets from privately-held Procket Networks, Inc. of Milpitas, Calif.
Procket Networks is a developer of concurrent
Ditto-
Frequent delays in sending to yahoo.com
-C
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Loftis
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Yahoo mail public notice of problems ?
--On Thursday, June 1
I'm having fun figuring out how altering BIND (since I assume that is
the basis of their arguements) rises to the level of conspiracy...
IANAL, obviously.
** Reply to message from Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 17 Jun
2004 16:54:20 -0500
> Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
>
> B
Anything I/we can do to help the cause?
Bob Martin
Quoted from different thread:
(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the
court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if
you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appear
--On Thursday, June 17, 2004 15:00 -0400 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is there a notice I can point non Yahoo Mail customers to explaining why
there are delivery delays? We are seeing a lot of stalled deliveries
again, and it would be nice to point to an explanation by yahoo as to
wha
Is there a notice I can point non Yahoo Mail customers to explaining why
there are delivery delays? We are seeing a lot of stalled deliveries again,
and it would be nice to point to an explanation by yahoo as to whats up
Stalls are both at the banner not coming up
marble% time telnet mx1.mail.y
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS
NANOG 32
GENERAL SESSION
TUTORIALS
CASE STUDIES
On 17 Jun 2004 18:00:02 +
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since
> the court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a
> co-conspirator. if you reply to this message, there's a good chance
> of your e-mail appearing i
> > think stability.
>
> I think recent events prove pretty well that Verisign GRS no longer gives
> a crap about stability. Have we forgotten *.COM so quickly?
oh please. i was an publically critical of *.COM and *.NET, but that's a
policy problem, not an operational problem. verisign ha
--On Thursday, June 17, 2004 16:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
think stability.
I think recent events prove pretty well that Verisign GRS no longer gives a
crap about stability. Have we forgotten *.COM so quickly?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:49:20AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Matt Levine wrote:
>
> >I'll still pose the question as a theoretical one... say it was
> >ultradns rather than akadns (..or any substantially large website in
> >traffic having an authoritive DNS
On Jun 17, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Matt Levine wrote:
Ya...didn't look at the setup before I posted, oh well..
I'll still pose the question as a theoretical one... say it was
ultradns rather than akadns (..or any substantially large website in
traffic having an authoritive DNS attack), would verisign
Ya...didn't look at the setup before I posted, oh well..
I'll still pose the question as a theoretical one... say it was
ultradns rather than akadns (..or any substantially large website in
traffic having an authoritive DNS attack), would verisign be willing to
push changes for somebody 'big' ?
On Jun 17, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Matt Levine wrote:
So, were google/yahoo able to get verisign to push a change to the
gtld registry to update their NS's, or was it just done during a
scheduled update?
What makes you think an update at the GTLDs was required?
Try digging for google.com, then dig for
So, were google/yahoo able to get verisign to push a change to the gtld
registry to update their NS's, or was it just done during a scheduled
update?
How much clout does one need to have the com zone
updated/pushed/reloaded? ;)
On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Ok, but isn
On Jun 17, 2004, at 5:52 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
This was in my mail this am. This is why there was an akamai dns
issue.
Shouldn't someone like CAIDA be able to verify these claims? (They look
at more than backscatter, right?)
I feel like something of this magnitude could have been noticed.
This was in my mail this am. This is why there was an akamai dns issue.
Curtis
--
Curtis Maurand
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.maurand.com
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:49:42 -0400
From: David Kennedy CISSP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subjec
Rob Nelson wrote:
Eventually all the "bad" customers end up with the same ISP, then
filtering is as easy as running loose uRPF and filtering on their AS
on input.
And that's why we can all safely dump anything from aol.com into
/dev/null, right? ;)
That´s somewhat to the same urban legends of
29 matches
Mail list logo
