On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking
> down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related
> (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve
> pushing packets from A to B.
Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was
cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering
related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt
involve pushing packets from A to B.
And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that ope
Michael Greb wrote:
> Barrett Lyon wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
>
> > I yanked the mp3 out of the youtube flv: http://blyon.com/routers_died.mp3
> > -Barrett
>
> Better, now we just need a higher quali
Martin Hannigan said:
Mail problems that are operational in nature are more than welcome
here.
Thanks Martin.
So... If there are any bellsouth.net mail ops people here, please
contact me privately. We had an out of control .forward user who we
have larted/fixed permanently (well over two we
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on
> >email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real
> >high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked.
>
>
> While there really should be some sort of partic
On 10/30/07, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> > At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
> >> On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> >> > nice i
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
> the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
> the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four
> me if I've missed it.
MAAWG co
believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on
email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real
high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked.
While there really should be some sort of particularly painful and
embarrassing punishment for this sort of jackas
> > I'm pretty sure
> > none of our systems have been compromised and forwards mail that we
> > don't know about.
>
> Yet your sending IP reputation is poor
Do you actually have data that confirms that?
We've had random problems mailing Hotmail (frequently), Yahoo!
(infrequently), and other
Triple play Solutions use DSCP all over the place. Lots of differenciated
services, especially when subscriber management comes into play. Triple play is
turning into 4 and 5xplay, then add the varying degrees of service and bundles
available across the different services, and different requirem
On 10/30/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this
> > > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They
> > > accept it, and either
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:55:24AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Benjamin Howell wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >>You can "nail" down your announcements to external peers by tying their
> >>network blocks to a route-of-last resort on
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this
> > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They
> > accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the
> > processing MX's o
>
> On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with
> > > > specific information other than to suggest a review
> > > > of the questionnaire
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, John Kristoff wrote:
How much has really changed? Do you (or if someone on these big nets
wants to own up offlist) have pointers to indicate that deployment is
significantly different now than they were a couple years ago? Even
better, perhaps someone can do a preso at a f
16 matches
Mail list logo
