Gmail seems to be in Beta stage. I got a Gmail account
months ago, but I do not use it by now.
The reason is it does not solve two bugs I met.
The first is, after logining into gmail it will prompt
with "Ooops, the system was unable to perform your
operation. Please try again in a few seconds" if
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> File a complaint with the BBB of Vancouver, BC. They are known
>> to the BBB. Then, let their collection goons waste their time
>> and their money, and tell them that if they want to see it back
>> they have to send you a prepaid box.
> Mike Lewinski wrote:
> Ah, excellent
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com
accounts already. :P
-Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols
If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a
1GB mailbox operated by another network?
Deepak "150GB and growing" Jain
Joshua Brady wrote:
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist.
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com
accounts already. :P
-Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols
> In the last couple of days, I have received complaints from customers
> not able to receive email from certain sites.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that these sites are not able
to send mail to you. Assuming that they are diverse sites that don't have
significant simila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In the last couple of days, I have received complaints from customers
not able to receive email from certain sites. From these sites, I
can't connect to our mail server, on other sites, I can. We have tried
sending email, and we have also tried te
Michel Py wrote:
File a complaint with the BBB of Vancouver, BC. They are known to the
BBB. Then, let their collection goons waste their time and their money,
and tell them that if they want to see it back they have to send you a
prepaid box.
Ah, excellent pointer! I see the Vancouver BBB lists thi
> Mike Lewinski wrote:
> Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last
> winter I received a call along the lines of "We'd like to
> send you some materials to review". Well, they sent some
> "Internet Law encyclopedia" along with an invoice for ~$700.
> Of course, there was no cost m
Owen DeLong wrote:
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the
doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially
latin
legalise for "Silence is Consent"). Instead, you should write on the
invoice
that you never agreed to purchase the items and send
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the
doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially latin
legalise for "Silence is Consent"). Instead, you should write on the
invoice
that you never agreed to purchase the items and send it back to them
ce
Invoicing for unsolicited materials is commonly referred to as "mail
fraud" hereabouts.
The courts have consistently upheld the notion that such materials can
be considered gifts.
IANAL but I would advise /dev/nulling all further correspondence from
these losers.
-- MAB
On Aug 18, 2004, at 18:3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) writes:
> in the example i posted earlier, i included some numbers from one member of
> the "f troop", which showed ~21M packets from rfc1918 space over the course
> of ~106 days. that's 241 queries per second. on only one host of many.
> granted it's not much as
On Aug 18, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Anyone that isn't working on this (even slowly) is helping
contribute to part of the problem/mess of rfc1918 sourced packets
leaking
to the internet.
Tell it to the unfortunate n
> > > > Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator,
> > > > can't just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be a few
> > > > folks who are misconfigured, but I can't imagine that it is enough
> > > > to cause operational issues.
a few folks? no. if it was a few pack
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> Anyone that isn't working on this (even slowly) is helping
> contribute to part of the problem/mess of rfc1918 sourced packets leaking
> to the internet.
Tell it to the unfortunate number of people manufacturing customer edge
Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last winter I
received a call along the lines of "We'd like to send you some materials
to review". Well, they sent some "Internet Law encyclopedia" along with
an invoice for ~$700. Of course, there was no cost mentioned in the
sales call- fo
WOW! Overwhelming response. Haven't sent them all out yet, but all
accounted for.
Brett
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:51:43 -0700, Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have
> any left, I'll send an invite.
>
> Brett
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 20
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:31:47PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:18:32PM -0700, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
> > > just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be
I received a few messages as well, one with US Bank, which I don't
have an account with, and they both had images attached. The image
was displayed, without any external connection.
As far as fighting abuse with abuse, it's not *always* a bad idea. If
the databases are filled with bad entries,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:18:32PM -0700, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
> > just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be a few folks who are
> > misconfigured, but I can't imagine that it is enough to cause o
> Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
> just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be a few folks who are
> misconfigured, but I can't imagine that it is enough to cause operational
> issues.
No, no operational issues at all from RFC1918 space
htt
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 07:57:53PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> this seems excessive, and so i've been assuming that it was all vijay's
> fault. but apparently it's not him. so which one of you isn't filtering
> 1918 at your edge? (oops, it's all of you, isn't it?)
Is it really enough traffic
I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have
any left, I'll send an invite.
Brett
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All gone
>
All gone
> That said, I do filter 1918 at my edge.
>
> /vijay
ok everybody, vijay says the snapshot below didn't come from him.
who wants to claim it, then?
# tcpdump -n -c 25 net 10 or net 192.168 or net 172.16.0.0/12
tcpdump: listening on fxp0
19:52:53.787244 10.9.10.250.53 > 192.5.5.241.53: 29644 MX
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Brady
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Wed 18 Aug 2004, 18:52 CEST]:
> Or, perhaps the better question is. How can one justify the cost of
> _public_ peering when fiber cross-connects are $200-$300/month each.
Perhaps not at the site previously mentioned.
I believe fiber crossconnects are cheaper
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> With these US street prices in mind, how can anyone justify paying
> prices of some commercial exchanges (the last offer I got from PAIX Palo
> Alto was USD 5500 per month for a FE port about a year ago, and Equinix
> Ashburn was not much cheaper). Ple
we took around a gig of port 80 syn flooding to a customer web host, it was
around 12-3pm utc.. ended when the customer disappeared off the net. not sure if
this is unusual tho, theres hundreds of such attacks per day globally...
Steve
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry I d
With these US street prices in mind, how can anyone justify paying
prices of some commercial exchanges (the last offer I got from PAIX Palo
Alto was USD 5500 per month for a FE port about a year ago, and Equinix
Ashburn was not much cheaper). Please note: I'm not talking of the
technical advantage
William B. Norton wrote:
> The Cost of Internet Transit in…
> Commit AU SG JP HK USA
> 1 Mbps $720$625$490$185$125
> 10 Mbps $410$350$150$100$80
> 100 Mbps$325$210$110$80 $45
> 1000 Mbps
mitigate the effects.
This advisory is available at
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20040818-ospf.shtml.
Affected Products
=
Vulnerable Products
This vulnerability was introduced by a code change that was committed to the
12.0S, 12.2, and 12.3 based release trains
Deepak Jain wrote:
Have you tried running a single TCP stream over a 10 meg ethernet with
a 5
megabit/s policer on the port? Do that, figure about what happens and
explain to the rest of the class why this single TCP stream cannot use
all
of the 5 megabit/s itself.
That's entirely a different exa
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004, Bevan Slattery wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing to do with
> blackholing. A brief description of the way it works can be found here:
>
> http://www.scamslam.com/ScamSlam/whatis.shtml
>
> We have not disclosed the site address to t
34 matches
Mail list logo
