Here's some info indicating that the issue was -NOT- the Cisco VoIP issue.
Cheers,
-Chris
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Monday, 24 Jan 2005 06:09:19
From: TWTC Alert Notification <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Notification of Successful Emergency Network Maint
Has anybody here been experiencing any abnormalities with the spamhaus
SBL-XBL lists? I've gotten an alarming number of complains in the last
24 hours regarding mail rejections from IP's that do not appear to be
listed in the SBL-XBL databse.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:41:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Lots. I'm sure that there are lots of ISPs/IAPs on NANOG
> that do RFC 2317 style delegations for their customers.
How many is lots?
And how often do the IP addresses of (outgoing) Mailservers change within
a subnet? Non
> I'm going to get ahold of Dan in private to see if we can host
> this on a inoc-dba and pstn-reachable conf bridge. i may be able
> to get one going.
i had originally planned to host a bridge that was both pstn- and inocdba/sip
reachable, but then the fine folks from merit said that they
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:37:46 -0500
"Chris Allermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anybody here been experiencing any abnormalities with the spamhaus
> SBL-XBL lists? I've gotten an alarming number of complains in the last
> 24 hours regarding mail rejections from IP's that do not appear to b
Can a clueful engineer / high level tech from Bell Sympatico, who can
handle Montreal related issues, please contact me off-list.
Thanks.
Todd
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:09:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:29:49 +0100, Markus Stumpf
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you look at your logfiles you will notice that > 95% of all legit
> > mailservers already have working and individual revDNS.
>
> I'll ju
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:43:06 PST, "J.D. Falk" said:
> (I'm also surprised you need 300 servers to handle such a small
> load -- what is that, ~ messages per server per day?)
Some mail software scales better than others. ;)
And yes, we *DID* have one large software vendor admit th
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:22:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which would mean that if Suresh insisted on revDNS, he'd end up blocking
> only 2 hosts, but 40% of his legitimate mail would be dropped on the floor.
Correct. But neither MTAMARK nor I suggest blocking based on non
existant rev
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:03:02 +0100, Markus Stumpf said:
> How did you calculate that "40% of my legitimate email"?
> If you get 60 emails from 60 different hosts that have revDNS and you
> get 40 mails from two hosts without revDNS then also "40% of your
> legitimate email" is coming from servers
On 01/25/05, Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am generalizing on what I see from about 300 mailservers and about
> 1 million messages a day.
One million ain't much by today's standards. That gets lost in
the noise at any of the bigger providers. I'd question whethe
Greetings.
My name is Tim Rainier. I'm an
end-customer of Chartermi.net. I work for Kalsec INC (www.kalsec.com)
as UNIX Systems administrator
with additional duties in regards to
network infrastructure and security.
I need an admin from AT&T Enhanced
Network Services to contact me as soon as p
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:51:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:43:06 PST, "J.D. Falk" said:
> > (I'm also surprised you need 300 servers to handle such a small
> > load -- what is that, ~ messages per server per day?)
> Some mail software scales better than
My company is going to be looking into SBCs MPLS offerings. Am looking
for any feedback and opinions regarding SBCs MPLS solution and WAN data
networking in general. Off list is fine. Thanks,
Matt
Paul Vixie wrote:
I'm going to get ahold of Dan in private to see if we can host
this on a inoc-dba and pstn-reachable conf bridge. i may be able
to get one going.
i had originally planned to host a bridge that was both pstn- and inocdba/sip
reachable, but then the fine folks from merit s
> > as co-moderator, i'd like all remote questions/comments to come via
> > irc, and not via the speakerphone. audio engineers take note --
> > mute all "other ends" plz.
>
> Paul, this is the reason I suggested an audio hybrid=>ata-186 for
> patching the audio to INOC. It doesn't matter if the
After this post, we did some real digging.
The timing of the ever lower levels of spew from our dial up pool
coincides with the blocking of the MS NetBios ports, and the
implementation of full outbound email scanning (both AV and spam). By
full scanning, I mean we treat all email as untrusted, r
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:41:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Lots. I'm sure that there are lots of ISPs/IAPs on NANOG
> > that do RFC 2317 style delegations for their customers.
>
> How many is lots?
Does it really matter? Even if it was only one site the problem
This
isn't generally a list for customer requests. You should probably call
Chartermi.
ATT
probably/usually won't act on a request regarding a customers circuit
(Charter).
You
dont appear to have any public space, an AS, or anything. I think you're
going
to be
stuck unless you route y
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:31:44AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Does it really matter?
Yes it does.
(As we all know at least since the Godzilla movie "size does matter" ;-)
It has direct influence on the deployment.
> Even if it was only one site the problem
> would still have
Unfortunately I tried that. I
guess I could try again, this is getting frustrating.
Regards,
Tim
"Hannigan, Martin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/25/2005 04:11 PM
To
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nanog@merit.edu
cc
Subject
RE: AT&T ENS
This isn't generally a list
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:31:44AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Does it really matter?
>
> Yes it does.
> (As we all know at least since the Godzilla movie "size does matter" ;-)
> It has direct influence on the deployment.
Well someone has to stand up for the small shops. Size
I have a situation where I want to run Nx24 pairs of GE across a
datacenter to several different customers. Runs are about 200meters max.
When running say 24-pairs of multi-mode across a datacenter, I have
considered a few solutions, but am not sure what is common/best practice.
a) Find/adapt
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:26:04AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You are adding a prefix not a type. If you added a type there
> would be no issue. It would work with existing RFC 2317 sytle
> delegations.
The issue would be deployment.
Design Choices When Expanding DNS (dra
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:03:02 +0100, Markus Stumpf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll just point out that you are generalizing based on a case you see
> > in your mailserver
>
> I am generalizing on what I see from about 300 mailservers and about
> 1 million messages a day.
You should see the tr
25 matches
Mail list logo
