> "Matthew" == Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of "grandma"
Matthew> listed in the whois (though that is a legitimate issue these
Matthew> days). If as an ISP, I list "Bob's Flower Market" (which has
Matthew> a DSL line
Support, do not support... In realiity, Cisco today is not
Cisco 5 years ago - it rapidly became very common and fat company. One of the
reasons - outsourcing (instead of having 10 good engineers here, they use 100
bad engineers in India... /not beause Indians are worst, but because having 10
While it is certainly an operational issue
if there are no operators left (or on the flip side, too many), I think even
that is quite a stretch.
Perhaps the economic discussion can be
completed elsewhere?
Joe Johnson
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On B
Hello Suresh,
I appreciate and respect your opinion. Please offer me that same respect in kind. I am aware of the fact of our diverse global economy and only think as many in US do we should be fair and equitable to all parties WORLDWIDE.
Respectfully yours,
JosephSuresh Ramasubramanian <
Joseph [23/09/04 18:53 -0700]:
>Don't Support Outsourcing
I suggest you lead by example.
>Don't buy from companies that outsource US jobs. Be very vocal and
Now please go unplug all your cisco and juniper equipment.
Then open up your servers and remove all the RAM / hard disks etc that
Hello Everyone,
Hey, I feel your pain and am seeing the same things happen all over our industry. Sadly, globalization is not a new trend and it will never end but I think its time WE alter its course. Its time for all American Tech workers to stand up and let our voices be heard. Modern capitalis
Oh Jesus cry me a river...
People, you're in tech. It will never stop changing. That means you
should never stop learning. If you stop learning, yes somebody else
is going to take your job because as an area of tech matures, tools
to manage it become better, less sophisticated people can do th
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jason Graun wrote:
I think the IT field as a whole, programmers, network guys, etc... are going
to go the way of the auto workers in the 70's and 80's. I am a CCIE working
and on a second one and it saddens me that all my hard work and advanced
knowledge could be replaced by a
I think the IT field as a whole, programmers, network guys, etc... are going
to go the way of the auto workers in the 70's and 80's. I am a CCIE working
and on a second one and it saddens me that all my hard work and advanced
knowledge could be replaced by a chop-shop guy because from a business
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 02:29, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> I've always personally taken anyone who said "but I'm an MCSE" with a
> grain of salt. I've had equal respect for the A-plus and Net-Plus
> certifications, which are basically bought.
I take most certifications with a grain of sal
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Erik Haagsman wrote:
I've always personally taken anyone who said "but I'm an MCSE" with a
grain of salt. I've had equal respect for the A-plus and Net-Plus
certifications, which are basically bought.
I used to have more trust in the /CC../ certifications but I find I may b
Hmm..we're flooded by CCNA's and CCNP's that often hardly know how logon
to a router as it is, so this will probably add a lot more, a bit like
the MCSE craze a few years ago ;-)
When they say training thousands of students, they're not talking
thousands of CCIE-level specialists that actually kno
Nicole wrote:
Lovely, Just lovely. Just heard On CNN, Lou Dobbs. (but can't find it on
their site)
During a Beijing news conference John Chambers (Cisco CEO) Says "We believe in
giving something back and truly becoming a Chineese company." "China will
become the IT center or the world" "China will
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Cisco moves even more to china.
>
>
>
>
> Lovely, Just lovely. Just heard On CNN, Lou Dobbs. (but can't find it on
> their site)
>
> During a Beijing news conference John Cha
Lovely, Just lovely. Just heard On CNN, Lou Dobbs. (but can't find it on
their site)
During a Beijing news conference John Chambers (Cisco CEO) Says "We believe in
giving something back and truly becoming a Chineese company." "China will
become the IT center or the world" "China will become
Note that draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt was approved and is
sitting in the RFC Editor's queue. It removes all of the policy
language in RFC 954, but is otherwise the same (and it
will likewise be issued as a Draft Standard, the current
status of RFC 954).
regards,
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
> > concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
> > about anybody else, but
The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of "grandma" listed in the
whois (though that is a legitimate issue these days). If as an ISP, I list
"Bob's Flower Market" (which has a DSL line and IP addresses for every cash
register and order-fulfillment machine) in whois, all that does is:
A
In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
> concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
> about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from
>
Ok, I'll bite...
I find the idea that an ISP must publish customer information offensive.
There is no reason why a guy who wants to get a T-1 into his house and a /24
to support all the stuff he's doing at home should be forced to publish his
full name and home address to the world (or worse, sho
On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote:
Effectively none.
APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their
whois servers.
And they are different from every other RIR in this respect how?
Joe
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:56:42 -0400, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
> concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
> about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from
> people i
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:36, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php
There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954.
RFC 954 is a description of how one whois service, "running on the
SRI-NIC machine (26.0.0.73 or 10.0.0.51)". How can any other whois
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:20, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
I guess the answer is yes, but I'm interested to know why.
The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
about an
With that kind of gear, and only 8 racks I really wonder how much the
colo provider was charging you to justify bringing the application
in-house.. eesh.
DJ
C. Bensend wrote:
Hi all,
I have received marching orders to pull our hardware out of a
datacenter in Chicago and have it distributed w
Is there a generally-accepted "best practice" that dictates the time frame
for relinquishing address space when changing providers?
I have a client with a /24 from provider X; we've built the infrastructure
for connectivity to provider Y (with new address space from them) but still
have a few hos
This proposal would be harmful in tracking hack
attacks, ddos attacks and other forms of annoyance,
spyware tracking and things that are beyond the
capability for any agency to handle because of largese
Technical fiefdoms were one of the worries of the 90's
now we are here and that is becoming th
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to problems. If
> Network X has a customer who is a problem, and we can't find out
> customer's name / e-mail / whatever, then Network X better be
> responsive. If not, then APNIC better be respons
Hi all,
I have received marching orders to pull our hardware out of a
datacenter in Chicago and have it distributed within our company.
We are migrating to the next generation of the application hosted
there and bringing everything in-house. This decision is all about
the money and has nothi
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
> > approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
> > records. The proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Matt!
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
> Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
Yes, the spammers are gonna love this.
RGDS
GARY
- ---
Gary E. Miller Rellim
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
Oh look.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php
There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954.
And there's already a blacklist ready and waiting.
-Dan
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19
On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
Dunno if "offensive" is the right word. "Worrisome", definitely.
Maybe after I have time to understand it better, it might become
offensive.
But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to proble
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
I think at this point it becomes a matter of "if they're not listed,
blacklist them". It could potentially be a huge filter set, but there's
so much crap coming from that corner of the globe anyway
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
> approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
> records.
Your mail is bouncing.
Your support reps claim that they have no control over blacklisting.
Your mail servers say that socrates.berkeley.edu is on a blacklist
that it isn't.
Please mail me, we've been trying to resolve this for a week.
Matt Ghali
berkeley.edu mail ops
I also ran into this problem yesterday, I contacted Cisco and
they said that they were not block any of my addresses or ranges which I
found to be strange since from what I could tell out of an entire /22
only one IP address was affected. As of around 0500 PDT this morning I
was able to a
Temkin, David wrote:
Can someone responsible for either security or operations of
www.cisco.com please contact me? We are seeing an issue where you may
be blocking one of our source IP addresses from accessing the website.
Hmmm... Weird. We're having a similar issue. If you are at liberty to,
coul
Can someone responsible for either security or operations of
www.cisco.com please contact me? We are seeing an issue where you may
be blocking one of our source IP addresses from accessing the website.
Thanks,
-Dave
David Temkin
S-I-G
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> The solution I am working toward is quickly identifying user
> >> infections. We are almost there. I collect and record all traffic
>
> Umm ... you mean you wire-tap all "my" email messages? (Anyone
> still wonders why I don't trust my ISP?)
>
> I wonder if my Teclo
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Correction, the world *can't* let you be a well functioning
exception.
People always scream 'no censorship', but there is only that many more
mail servers and preprocessing machines you can throw at a $20/month
account.
Hmm. "You get w
I was just going to stay out of this, but I can't...
Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Congrats. Ask your ISP for non-generic rDNS, in your domain, so I know
where to send the abuse reports.
I did.
"Reverse *wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Correction, the world *can't* let you be a well functioning
> exception.
> People always scream 'no censorship', but there is only that many more
> mail servers and preprocessing machines you can throw at a $20/month
> account.
Hmm. "You get what you pay for.", you mean? I ca
on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Congrats. Ask your ISP for non-generic rDNS, in your domain, so I know
> > where to send the abuse reports.
>
> I did.
>
> "Reverse *what*?"
So explain it to them in words of two syllables or less, whe
Lars-Johan Liman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> Congrats. Ask your ISP for non-generic rDNS, in your domain, so I
>> know where to send the abuse reports.
> I did. "Reverse *what*?"
I took my home ADSL to a company that delegates appropriate bits of
in-addr.arpa to my servers.
> > Our system is similar, except we block port 25 completely via RADIUS
> > after we detect an outgoing virus or spam,
>
> Detect how?
We don't sniff traffic for suspicious signatures at this point.Viruses
are eventually caught by the assumption that "send to everyone in the
address book" e
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
The problem is that the world *won't let me* be a well functioning
exception.
Correction, the world *can't* let you be a well functioning exception.
not true. it can but many have decided not to.
Just like I also 'chose' to not read messages tagged by softwar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> The solution I am working toward is quickly identifying user
>> infections. We are almost there. I collect and record all traffic
Umm ... you mean you wire-tap all "my" email messages? (Anyone
still wonders why I don't trust my ISP?)
I wonder if my Teclo listens in on all
>> The problem is that the world *won't let me* be a well functioning
>> exception.
> Correction, the world *can't* let you be a well functioning exception.
not true. it can but many have decided not to.
randy
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
I *understand* that I'm a rare exception.
The problem is that the world *won't let me* be a well functioning
exception.
Correction, the world *can't* let you be a well functioning
exception.
People always scream 'no censorship', but there is only that ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Congrats. Ask your ISP for non-generic rDNS, in your domain, so I know
> where to send the abuse reports.
I did.
"Reverse *what*?"
Just to clue you in. They used to have the only two authoritative
servers for their reverse zone sitting on the same LAN with the IP#s
next to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 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.
Then in all fairness block also port 80. A comparable amount of junk
is sent using port 80.
> This can be readily dete
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 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.
They have the means (by definition). They don't have the willingness.
Cheers,
Thoughts folks might find this bit from John Quarterman's Internet Perils outfit, by
way of Martin Dodge, interesting:
https://www.internetperils.com/perilwatch/20040914.php
Visualizes the impact of the loss of an undersea cable to the Cayman Islands
54 matches
Mail list logo
