On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:39:34 + (GMT)
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ooh, when did Verisign get rid of their Snubby program and put in something that
> actually behaves like an SMTP server? Seems verisign are watching the community
> reaction and acting to rectify their error
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:22:34 +0100
"Ray Bellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we do have though are (optional) *inbound* filters that make sure
> no-one can connect to their privileged ports over TCP/IP, and a mandatory
> filter that says only our network can deliver to their SMTP service.
>
>
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > ...and for heavens sake, stop accepting any kind of request at all on port
> : > 25!! Just shut it down altogether. There is no reason for you to accept
> : > any connection of any kind on port 25!
>
> : If the
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Gerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...and for heavens sake, stop accepting any kind of request at all on port
> 25!! Just shut it down altogether. There is no reason for you to accept
> any connection of any kind on port 25!
I shall only respond to thi
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:48:43 +0300 (IDT)
Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Verisign is a business and its goal is to make money.More importantly,
> > its a publically traded company whose goal is to make its stock value go up.
> > So, if we're interested in having them listen, we shoul
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:50:07 +0300 (IDT)
Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't you think this kind of change should have been discussed first? Or
> at the *very* least - a 3 day pre-change notice? Or did mgmt think a
> pre-notice would have caused a firestorm of sufficient size to ma
Sorry for the double-post folks, I got a bounce and didn't look closely
at it.
If somebody could check the subscriber list for an address that might
result in [EMAIL PROTECTED] filtering really innocent emails (I know
this has happened to others too), and contacting the owner, that would
be great.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:29:43 -0700
Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like it broke. Your web server (64.94.110.11) is inoperative.
> How about backing out the change
Chances are your ISP has null-routed that IP address. Two of the larger
ISPs in my area (Ontario, Canada) have,
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:45:26 -0700
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:18 PM 9/15/2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >Even worse of this is that you can't verify domain names under .net
> >any more for 'existence' as every .net domain suddenly has a A record
> >and then can be used for spamming
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:29:43 -0700
Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like it broke. Your web server (64.94.110.11) is inoperative.
> How about backing out the change
Chances are your ISP has null-routed that IP address. Two of the larger
ISPs in my area (Ontario, Canada) have, a
10 matches
Mail list logo
