Dear colleagues,
This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and discussion
are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/pr
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has anybody done a comparison for different instances of this same problem
> (for instance, rate of fixing of 69/8 filters, open SMTP relays, installing a
Coworkers keep breaking the SQL db access, and when I notice it broken, I
fix it...but http://
At 04:12 PM 9/22/2004 -0700, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
>
>
>NANOG,
>
>I am trying to get some information on some of the worst spyware offenders
>currently nailing users.
>
>Is there something like isc.sans.org but for tracking spyware
>infection/spread rates? I'm not looking for specific papers o
I've been informed
that the members of this list would be interested in a usability study being
conducting on the activities of Email Administrators. If you are not an email
administrator but know of someone who might be interested please feel free
to forward this message.
I am l
NANOG,
I am trying to get some information on some of the worst spyware offenders
currently nailing users.
Is there something like isc.sans.org but for tracking spyware
infection/spread rates? I'm not looking for specific papers on worm
speeds ( ala the warhol worm paper) but a more generic st
> Now here are the questions, I'd like to receive feedback on:
> ---
>
> 1. Are you ISP? What size?
I am ISP. Well rather, I'm AN ISP. Okay, so I just operate one, but
you get the gist.
> 2. If you're ISP are you willing to quick
> As such, when we have seen our IP blocks get blocked strictly because of
> the rDNS entry having 'dsl' in it, a simple email to the admins
> explaining that we are not providing dynamic services has gotten our
> rDNS entries taken off of the blacklist.
I don't particularly like situation where
Let's move this thread to some place where people love to talk about spam:
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/spam-l.html -- spam-l list for
spam prevention and discussion
http://www.abuse.net/spamtools.html -- spam tools list for software
tools that detect spam
net.admin.ne
I don't want to add to this bash-fest, but maybe a little context and a laugh helps...
the original posting sounds like utter frustration, something I'm sure a few people
are familiar with if you've ever worked for a bunch of sociopathic conartists using
their service provider business to steal
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:52:54 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
> Older versions of SA, especially with custom DNSBL rules, may have had
> this issue (applying DUL type DNSBL rules to IPs in every Received:
> header:) but thats been fixed for some time.
In many cases, "fixed" != "deployed", unfortunately. And
Steven> OK, now let's make it more in line with modern practice:
Steven> Say a protocol more or less completely lacked server-server
Steven> authentication, or a way to distinguish between client and
Steven> server, and that then every day, for ten years, hundreds and
Steven> [...]
St
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> AK> headers, so every SA on the way happily scores it rather
> AK> high as these RBLs sum up. What would be gained than at the
> AK> end of it?
>
> Huh?! Either you're running { UUCP | some strange multihop
> relaying } or I'm totally confused. You
On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:06 PM, John Curran wrote:
At 4:51 PM +0100 9/22/04, Randy Bush wrote:
in the north american culture, this is usually termed "guilty
until proven innocent," and generally discouraged. perhaps we
should not deprive the customer of rights/services until they
have been shown to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:44:10 -, "Edward B. Dreger" said:
> Huh?! Either you're running { UUCP | some strange multihop
> relaying } or I'm totally confused. You connect to your colo box
> directly. There are no other hops along the way.
Unless you do final delivery on that hypothetical 1U c
>> in the north american culture, this is usually termed "guilty
>> until proven innocent," and generally discouraged. perhaps we
>> should not deprive the customer of rights/services until they
>> have been shown to have abused them?
>
> I am *so* happy that the power grid doesn't operate this
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
It's too d---ned cheap to send out spam, and it'll be too d---ned
cheap to sell your stuff over VOIP in the future.
But we've fixed that! We added a ENUM layer with DNSSEC on top of it.
So now we can decide what to tell our potential callers without them
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> lars-johan's posting was a wonderfully eloquent plea for the
> survival of the internet, as opposed to the walled-garden telco
> model.
In a vacuum, we all agree with him. He should be sending his plea to
Redmond, from whence comes the vulnerable soft
At 4:51 PM +0100 9/22/04, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>in the north american culture, this is usually termed "guilty
>until proven innocent," and generally discouraged. perhaps we
>should not deprive the customer of rights/services until they
>have been shown to have abused them?
I am *so* happy that th
> At 10:16 AM +0200 9/22/04, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>> I cannot agree to the "block port 25" line of action.
>
> You block port 25 until a customer says that they're claim to have
> setup a responsible mail submission agent and demonstrate the
> necessary clue density.
[ we have had this discus
AK> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:54:20 +0200
AK> From: Alexander Koch
AK> What will that 1U server help me if I am sending stuff from
AK> my Unix box at home via SMTP to it when my IP block is in
AK> the various 'dialup' RBLs and ends up in the Received
Presumably you'd admin the 1U server, and you
At 10:16 AM +0200 9/22/04, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>I cannot agree to the "block port 25" line of action.
You block port 25 until a customer says that they're claim to have
setup a responsible mail submission agent and demonstrate the
necessary clue density.
This can be readily determined by hav
Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 22 September 2004 10:40:30 -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
> [..]
>> Buy an appropriate connectivity product for your home connectivity and
>> the problems go away. Put your servers in a colo (a la
>> http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/ ) and th
Most DSL providers that hand out static addressing also have the means
to delegate the rDNS. Sounds like it is time to get your own DNS on.
- Mark E. Miller
"...it said: Install Windows 2000 or better...so I installed FreeBSD..."
PGP Key fingerprint = 4E60 8A3C ECE5 3018 474B 1D0F 9C74 614
Alexander Koch wrote:
What will that 1U server help me if I am sending stuff from
my Unix box at home via SMTP to it when my IP block is in
the various 'dialup' RBLs and ends up in the Received
headers, so every SA on the way happily scores it rather
high as these RBLs sum up. What would be gained
> Blocking just hides it. I used to believe in port blocking as the solution
> to many user problems but now I have 3 and 4 page ACL's
> on my border routers. This does not scale. Yes, I could push this out via
> radius to the NAS but again this does not solve the problem.
> The solution I am wo
On Wed, 22 September 2004 10:40:30 -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
[..]
> Buy an appropriate connectivity product for your home connectivity and
> the problems go away. Put your servers in a colo (a la
> http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/ ) and the problems go away. It costs
> more to maintain a z
And let's not forget that if you use that 3rd party provider, especially
to connect to SIAC, you pay a premium to have someone to blame other
than the actual data provider.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Se
Lars-Johan Liman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I cannot agree to the "block port 25" line of action.
>
> I am a Unix sysadmin, with 15 years of experience as sendmail and DNS
> expert. I have a DSL line at home, with static IP, and generic rDNS
> provided by my ISP. Behind it I have a serious Un
on Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:16:41AM +0200, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>
> I cannot agree to the "block port 25" line of action.
>
> I am a Unix sysadmin, with 15 years of experience as sendmail and DNS
> expert. I have a DSL line at home, with static IP, and generic rDNS
> provided by my ISP. Behind
Hi everyone - here are the agenda topics we've lined up so far for NANOG 32 in Reston.
More talks will be added, so keep an eye on the web:
www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/topics.html
Our hotel block expires on Tuesday, Oct. 28, so please register soon to save $$:
www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/
Hi,
This is a follow-up to a message I sent a week or so ago.
I am trying to get a reading on how big a problem people are having
managing Access Control Lists. Do you have software to help you manage
this today? If so, what? If not, is it something you want?
Any operational experience you can
> I would prefer not to use a third party provider
> because of the IP backbone. My experience has been
> witht eh third party providers is that there is not
> enough responsiveness (packet loss issues) to
> burstable traffic at market open and close.
> Unfortunately when the third party networks
Backhoes are not the threat I was worried about - no need to beat a dead horse though
or continue this in a public forum. The difference between viewing the world at layer
1 vs layer 3.
- Original Message -
From: "R. Benjamin Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2
I cannot agree to the "block port 25" line of action.
I am a Unix sysadmin, with 15 years of experience as sendmail and DNS
expert. I have a DSL line at home, with static IP, and generic rDNS
provided by my ISP. Behind it I have a serious Unix server, configured
to roughly the same standard that
34 matches
Mail list logo
