RE: [cacti-announce] Cacti 0.8.6j Released (fwd)

2007-02-07 Thread Ray Burkholder
> > > How about something like: > > http://www.hdfgroup.org/whatishdf5.html > > I don't think they support transactional updates, which makes > it hard to use for live data. (A simple crash, and you need > to recover from > backup.) Going back to this thread, http://www.kx.com/ deals in fin

NANOG39 - Toronto

2007-02-07 Thread Carol Wadsworth
Found in NANOG meeting rooms: 2 wireless headsets 1 power plug converter (white)

Anyone with SMTP clue at Verizon Wireless / Vtext?

2007-02-07 Thread Mike Lyon
Their gateway is blocking mail from my host. Of course, there is no clueful contact info on their webpage... Please hit me up offlist. Thanks, mike

Re: comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
On 2/8/07, Al Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 links you to http://www.comcastsupport.com/rbl aka http://www.comcastsupport.com/sdcxuser/lachat/user/Blockedprovider.asp What Al said, in spades. That blacklist_

Re: comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread Jack Bates
Albert Meyer wrote: Didn't we all figure out years ago that, when using a telephone or cable company for Internet service, you have to just use the pipe and get your services (mail, news, etc.) elsewhere? Bemoaning the poor quality of telco/cableco mail servers is kind of like wishing that t

Re: comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread Al Iverson
On 2/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As if that is not bad enough only comcast customers can complain. The link given on the bounce email: http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18627 A pattern can apparently be discerned from a single email. The

Re: comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread Albert Meyer
Didn't we all figure out years ago that, when using a telephone or cable company for Internet service, you have to just use the pipe and get your services (mail, news, etc.) elsewhere? Bemoaning the poor quality of telco/cableco mail servers is kind of like wishing that the rain wouldn't be so

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread virendra rode //
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Otis wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: > >> >> Alexander Harrowell wrote: >>> >>> It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" >>> that nothing was seriously amiss. >> >> Yes, but it got so much

RE: comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread David Hubbard
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The current comcast policy seems to be to backhole mail > servers at random. This is true. We do mostly ecommerce hosting and often our customers have their own dedicated servers blacklisted from sending email notifications of new orders to their home comcast add

comcast spam policies

2007-02-07 Thread doug
I will not ask if anyone at Comcast has a clue, because I do not need any dvds. If this not correct, I would appreciate hearing from anyone whose clue-ness exceeds 15%. The rest is a description/rant about comcast's policy as described to me by a couple of tech people reached by following voice ma

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Douglas Otis
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: Alexander Harrowell wrote: It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that nothing was seriously amiss. Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be too far behind. When 2 of 13 root systems

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Hank Zannini
> But that aspect was wasted time, since they're putting Ma Bell back > together again... Speaking of putting Ma Bell Back together again - you have to see this You Tube Video on AT&T - before they yank it. It does accurately chronicle the AT&T divestiture and Assembly again. http://www.youtub

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:17:34 -0800 "Aaron Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/7/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A caveat - Ndex 4 is usually "situation normal, members bored and > > discussing the relative merits of the Chicago and Kansas City cable > > tie knots

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Aaron Glenn
On 2/7/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A caveat - Ndex 4 is usually "situation normal, members bored and discussing the relative merits of the Chicago and Kansas City cable tie knots." to be fair that was a pretty informative discussion for those of us who were still weari

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Jeff Kell
Alexander Harrowell wrote: > > It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that > nothing was seriously amiss. Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be too far behind. Jeff

Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers

2007-02-07 Thread Alexander Harrowell
It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that nothing was seriously amiss. Ndex value of 0, i.e. no traffic on-list, means either "all systems go!" or "outage so serious that Mitre is unreachable. Stockpile ammunition" Ndex value of 5, i.e. +/=100 mails/day, means "seri