On 5/31/05, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not having received one, I have no gag order, so, I am free to tell you I
haven't received one.
Owen
This assumes that the new breed of NSL doesn't require you to deny
having received an NSL when questioned, unless you want to have some
On 6/1/05, Chris Kuethe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/05, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not having received one, I have no gag order, so, I am free to tell you I
haven't received one.
Owen
This assumes that the new breed of NSL doesn't require you to deny
having received an
http://isc.sans.org/port_details.php?port=25
Stef
Network Fortius, LLC
On May 31, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I've seen an almost astronomical increase in bogus smtp connections
(did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to) within the
past 18 hours. Up to +1100 today
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:31 AM
To: Jason Frisvold; Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
[ SNIP ]
I
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4599147.stm
[and]
http://www.nominum.com/popupPressRelease.php?id=344
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up (unless I'm
missing something). And I've no desire to
on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
(As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
spam. Other DNSBLs and
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as
Assuming it does via their systems - most zombies have their own smtp
engine from what I understand
Yes. Why would they need anything more than a broken SMTP engine that
has been ripped from one sample to another for over 8 years?
I'm exaggerating of course, but you get the picture.
Let's
Zombies do both, but my comment wasn't about zombies, it was about
users. If you are a user with a vanity domain trying to send e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], you cannot through VZ's system. Despite
the fact we have spent years telling people they have to use their
local ISP's mail
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:17 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Zombies do both, but my comment wasn't about zombies, it was about
users. If you are a user with a vanity domain trying to send e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], you cannot through VZ's system. Despite
the fact we have spent years telling people
The example given in this thread proves you wrong. My friend had a
vanity domain, did not have her own mail server.
Okay, and why does she need to use Verizon's servers to send email from
her own vanity domain?
Unless I am missing something and Verizon gets paid for this?
But that's OK, we
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
The example given in this thread proves you wrong. My friend had a
vanity domain, did not have her own mail server.
Okay, and why does she need to use Verizon's servers to send email
from
her own vanity domain?
Unless I am missing something
Yes, $50/month.
Then there is the problem. If she pays for the service of sending email
using the vanity domain through the ISP's servers, then it should be,
naturally, allowed.
No, 100s of 1000s of not-so-clued users have vanity domains. Have you
checked how many domains are registered on
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
that's fine. But to say only allow ISP.net from addresses - but
allow
them from anywhere on the 'Net is kinda ... silly.
No, it makes perfect sense but that is the one
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
(As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
in place for very specific reasons, and
If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
that's fine. But to say only allow ISP.net from addresses - but allow
them from anywhere on the 'Net is kinda ... silly.
I think we are arguing the same side of the problem. I think I mis-read
this one sentence.
SMTP
I fear you will have to agree to disagree with just about anyone who
runs a large mail server.
Read my other email on that one.
1) It is not a solution because it does not stop spam. In fact, it is
easier to send spam through VZ's mail servers than just about anyone
else's.
I was not
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)
keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
verizon is using
See above - would you consider forwarding mail from outside ISP.net space
without an SMTP AUTH check just because it claims to be 'From @ISP.net'?
Yep, I was arguing the wrong point. We're on the same side. Sorry for
the misunderstanding.
Read my statements under that light and you will see
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:51:17 +0400, Gadi Evron said:
If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
that's fine. But to say only allow ISP.net from addresses - but allow
them from anywhere on the 'Net is kinda ... silly.
No, it makes perfect sense but that is
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
There is no real reason why you should be able to email out with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using Verizon's own servers.
perhaps not that, but surely [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if they do/have auth
info they can even see who it was when there are problems.
If you
1) monopoly isps
2) standard config
3) lack of ability to make 1/2/3 changes here/there/everywhere (config
drift) for customers not paying more than the 'standard'.
There are other reasons of course. Also, customers with their own
SMTP/IMAP services COULD just do tcp/587 'submission'...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)
keep in mind I'm just thinking
A major concern is indemnification and immunity for the ISP.
When someone is prosecuted they usually face major legal expenses, and
often are incapable of paying them. The prospect of a lengthy prison
sentence and/or criminal record does not portend well either.
Defense lawyers know this all
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Barry Shein wrote:
A major concern is indemnification and immunity for the ISP.
This sort of power was greatly expanded by a suspiciouly intentioned US
bill-turned-law from 2001 whose name I dare not mention in cleartext (g),
which allows such subpoenaless probes into far
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anything from anywhere, even if it's from a hijacked box in Korea, can forward
through our server as long as it has a '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' From: on it,
but if one of our own customers tries to send through the server with a From:
that says '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' they can't
I have been running in circles with the sales folk. Would an engineer or
technical sales person from New World Networks / ARCOS-1 please contact me
off-list to discuss transit between Honduras and USA via the ARCOS-1
sub-Caribbean fiber ring please?
-Andrew
--
Ing. Andrew White, CTO
I've noticed in the last ten minutes or so that cingular and tmobile
users are both unable to make or receive calls; at least in the
Redwood City and Berkeley (!) areas. Anyone know if something is up?
matto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin
The only thing necessary for the triumph
On 6/1/05, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a united.com person listening:
www.united.com's NS servers are -
dns01.uls-prod.com.
dns02.uls-prod.com.
DNS01 seems 'fine' (responds atleast)
DNS02 seems to return 'servefail' for everything...
Servefail seems to make cache dns servers not
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:56:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a united.com person listening:
www.united.com's NS servers are -
dns01.uls-prod.com.
dns02.uls-prod.com.
whois and dig +trace show that www.united.com's servers are now:
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a united.com person listening:
www.united.com's NS servers are -
dns01.uls-prod.com.
dns02.uls-prod.com.
whois and dig +trace show that www.united.com's servers are now:
dc1lbs1.uls-prod.com
dc2lbs1.uls-prod.com
maybe the
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:56:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a united.com person listening:
www.united.com's NS servers are -
dns01.uls-prod.com.
dns02.uls-prod.com.
whois and dig +trace
As the subject says.
thanks
srs
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:03:17AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:56:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a united.com person listening:
www.united.com's NS servers are
Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at
199.166.24.1 ?
Thanks.
Chris
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:23:25AM -0400, Chris Beggy wrote:
Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at
199.166.24.1 ?
Thanks.
Chris
have you considered b.root-servers.net at 192.228.79.201
--bill
At 7:21 PM -0700 2005-06-01, John Bittenbender wrote:
We don't provide email services to our customers. We are merely a
wireless ISP generally used as their secondary connection to use while
the customer is mobile. Another large portion of our client base are
enterprises and public
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:21:21PM -0400, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:03:17AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:56:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Not horribly on topic, but perhaps there is a
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:21:21PM -0400, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:03:17AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:56:20AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Not
43 matches
Mail list logo
