On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Frank Bulk wrote:
This discussion is now drifting back to the one we had several weeks ago
about properly and adequately staffing the abuse desk (email, phone, and
otherwise) in spite of the temptation to take advantage of the
'efficiencies' of scale. It's beyond me how a
This discussion is now drifting back to the one we had several weeks ago
about properly and adequately staffing the abuse desk (email, phone, and
otherwise) in spite of the temptation to take advantage of the
'efficiencies' of scale. It's beyond me how an abuse@ can afford to drop
emails via thei
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although you asked for DNS servers - it helps to remember that no matter
what the servers and resolvers do - IE will bring that behaviour to
naught in many cases
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;263558
*/"Thurman, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: DNS TTL adherence
Although you asked for DNS servers - it helps to remember that no matter what the servers and resolvers do - IE will bring that behaviour to naught in many caseshttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;263558"Thurman, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Title: DNS TTL adherence
Does anyone know if there is a research paper or statistics related to what percentage of DNS servers do not adhere to advertised TTL’s? I am looking for some verifiable research on this topic if it is available.
Thanks,
Steve
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Complete and utter incompetence (ie spam filtering their abuse mailbox)
Considering the amount of spam that abuse mailboxes get then spam
filtering them is actually a good idea. You just have to be a little
careful to not block the complaints.
One way I did
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:22:33 PST, Jo Rhett said:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:05:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Or perhaps there's a more reasonable explanation like being assimilated
> > with Level3 and perhaps some contact info. is a little stale at this
> > point in the merger process.
I don't disagree.
In my opinion, companies which neglect the updating of contact information
should be beaten, perhaps with a large cue stick or a ball peen hammer.
The reality of the situation is that issues can arise much more important
than even the one described here (perhaps a large DOS
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:05:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or perhaps there's a more reasonable explanation like being assimilated
> with Level3 and perhaps some contact info. is a little stale at this
> point in the merger process... Never attribute to malfeasance what can
> be explain
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 06:56:30AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> You are aware Wiltel was acquired by Level(3) some time ago? Going to
> www.wiltel.com would tell you this.
Then they need to update their contact information on the zones.
Anyway, it turns out that they are using a spam filter
Hello,
I need clarification; appreciate any comments on list or off
list.
Here is the backdrop,
* Our router is a Juniper and our IP transit provider’s
router is a Cisco.
* 1 ebgp session between us.
* Between us we have the following circuits,
2 DS3’s
1 OC3 (burstable)
*
Hello,
You are aware Wiltel was acquired by Level(3) some time ago? Going to
www.wiltel.com would tell you this.
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
This morning we have started receive an abundance of spam from Wiltel
customers, pointing boldly back to websites hosted in Wiltel space.
Simon Waters wrote:
So.. ICANN, the domain name's importance to phishing and what registrars
can do, in that order.
I thought we established last month that deleting domain names is a very good
way of messing up the entire Internet. See the thread on losing entire data
centres.
The domain
On Tuesday 14 Mar 2006 07:11, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Sure seems like security is AWOL on the registrars agenda:
I thought we established last month that deleting domain names is a very good
way of messing up the entire Internet. See the thread on losing entire data
centres.
If you have an
14 matches
Mail list logo
