On Sun, 1 May 2005, Will Yardley wrote:
Is it time to break out the Please do not feed the trolls sign?
Feeding 'em anyway... but *plonk* for Mr. Anderson. For those who are
masochists, read on.
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:50:29PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
But only 16 email clients
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Off topic again Dean...? Can't you keep on topic and keep the personal
attacks out of the list...?
Funny how its only off topic when its about your abuse.
Dean Anderson wrote:
ignored. Then, in the fall of 2003, when the major open relay
in 2002)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:01:31 -0600
From: John Brown CT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Joe Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org,
dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: [dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)
[...]
I realize
On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7200 most certainly does not have interface processors. 7500 does have
processors on the VIPs that do forwarding lookups in a distributed
fashion, but the same procedure for software forwarding apply, there
just
happen to be a few more
On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots
if the rest of you are just
going to keep on replying to same. so, as RAH had
LL say: never try to teach
a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I believe it is still
On Mon, 2 May 2005, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Better yet, try to name 16 mail clients people _actually use_ which
DON'T, other than MUA-only programs like mailx and mutt with no SMTP
support at all. When I worked at a mediumish
This was Vixie's last post on the subject of Anycast on DNSOP.
NB: Patrick Gilmore and Chris Morrow, note that Vixie agrees that HTTP
anycast is a bad idea.
Note the nonsense about anycast being completely coherent.
Note also that Vixie continues to ignore per-packet load balancing issues,
and
BTW, Iljitsch notes that he is worried, but not as much as Dean seems to
be. As I told Iljitsch, I'm not saying the sky is falling, but I am
saying there is a problem, and instead of addressing the problem, people
are just making personal attacks.
-- Forwarded message --
Date:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying children call me names.
They really hate it when you debunk their fallacies.
Vixie is a screamer, like John Bolton. I'd love to say procmail Vixie,
but he has too much control over DNS root
On Tue, 3 May 2005, David Barak wrote:
Dean has weighed in on topics such as router architecture and the
ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in backbone networks, and
been thoroughly wrong.
I never said that PPLB is ubiquitous (widely used--for those not so used
to big words). I
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mark Boolootian wrote:
Note the nonsense about anycast being completely coherent.
If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said ultradns's
anycast for .ORG is completely coherent.
There seems to be no possibility for anycast to be completely coherent,
so
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
No it's because you're off topic. Whether justified or not SORBS
complaints and SORBS bashing are not on-topic for NANOG.
This is not particularly about SORBS bashing. Its about the need for SMTP
AUTH, whether SMTP AUTH stops spam, and who abuses
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
There seems to be no possibility for anycast to be completely coherent,
so ultradns' anycast couldn't be completely coherent either. But Vixie
mentions it to respond to comments by others about Ultradns' particularly
pervasive use of anycast.
it may
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Bill Nash wrote:
Since nothing any part is saying is changing anyone's mind, agree to
disagree and take it offlist.
Some progress is being made, in spite of the wailing and name-calling.
The people doing the name-calling aren't contributing more than disruptive
noise,
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
i'm terribly sorry, but i'm unable to extract any meaning at all from these
statements. when i parse them, they make no sense at all (not in terms of
being wrong, just not understandable). could you rephrase them?
coherency and consistency are well-defined
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
e.g., I specifically cited laws and cases that appear to apply to
blacklists... now you claim I stated DNSBLs are exempt? Someone needs
to put down the crackpipe.
You agreed with me on something? I must have missed that at the time. I'm
*sure* I
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
You object to SMTP+AUTH because it isn't standard:
http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00263.html
http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00289.html
Neither of these links actually work. But it is Draft Standard. That
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
e.g., I specifically cited laws and cases that appear to apply to
blacklists... now you claim I stated DNSBLs are exempt? Someone needs
to put down
On Sun, 1 May 2005, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
When somebody in the office picks up a phone and dials EXTERNAL-911 how
do the emergancy services know they are in one building rather than another
office across town?
The
This seems like a new thread, so I changed the title.
inline
On Sun, 1 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:09:50 EDT, Dean Anderson said:
criticisms (made presumably in 1999), were correct. In 2005, SMTP AUTH is
basically dead. There hasn't been a new mail client
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
DA Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 21:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
DA From: Dean Anderson
DA http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00263.html
DA http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00289.html
DA
DA Neither of these links actually work
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
And if they aren't found by open-relay
blacklists, they aren't abused and there are no problems whatsoever.
How much credibility are you trying to lose?
I have 9 years of operational experience running open relays.
How
Using SORBS? just how much credibility do you want to lose?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:30:00 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
The original message was received at
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, let's ditch the term PPLB. The usual alternative to per
packet load balancing (what's been being talked about here) is per prefix
load balancing, which would also be PPLB. The abbreviation is
therefore
more confusing
The questions of what various routers do now or did in the past is
irrelevant. So, to wrap it up:
RFC 1546 give this rule about internetwork architecture on page 5:
An internetwork has no obligation to deliver two successive packets
sent to the same anycast address to the same host.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, James wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:56:01PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
[ snip ]
Err. No, that would be worse. Per prefix load balancing is an artifact
of the Cisco route cache. The route engine (ie the route table) isn't
queried for every packet
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Robert M. Enger wrote:
Steinar:
There is a large body of work from competent and well known researchers
that assert the claim. I certainly lack standing to question their
results.
Empirically, download speeds to
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So agreeing for a second with Dean that indeed this behaviour would appear to
be
prohibited or at least inconsistent with the RFCs, the fact is anycast is
widely
deployed and is proven to be stable.
vixie-cast is deployed on around 60 or so
faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Iljitsch
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Been happening for many years. How do you think the original
Boardwatch / Keynote speed tests were gamed? If you have any real
experience on the Internet, you are well acquainted with anycast web
servers.
Gaming speed tests sounds
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
Or don't. No one here cares if you do. Reality trumps lab tests.
Reality for the last ten years has been that no one did either
PPLB or
TCP DNS. That reality is changing. It'll
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:00:00 EDT, Dean Anderson said:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where do you see any connection between anycast and ignoring DNS TTL?
The data he showed isn't necessarilly ignoring ttl
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather expect this sort of behavior with anycasted servers...
Where do you see any connection between anycast and ignoring DNS TTL
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
Or don't. No one here cares if you do. Reality trumps lab tests.
Reality for the last ten years has been that no one did either PPLB
or TCP DNS. That reality is changing. It'll
I'd rather expect this sort of behavior with anycasted servers...
With a cache, the behavior is confusing, but also harms DNS TCP support,
just like that described for authoritative servers.
Further there isn't a good reason to have anycasted caches. Indeed, with
DHCP-learned nameservers,
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Crist Clark wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
I'd rather expect this sort of behavior with anycasted servers...
I would not expect this kind of behavior from an anycasted address.
You'd need a LOT of routing churn to see different caches every few
seconds. It's much more
Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Crist Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Slashdot: Providers Ignoring DNS TTL?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Crist Clark wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
I'd rather expect this sort of behavior with anycasted servers...
I would not expect this kind
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And I can show that if you give a pig wings
I suppose IF a pig had wings, indeed, it *would* fly. But pigs aren't
growing winglets.
However, there are two relevant facts here:
1) People are starting to deploy PPLB.
2) People
Thanks for the clarification. I agree, it is very unusual to transfer a
trademark without transferring the product it identifies. I didn't know it
was impossible.
Since you are an expert on the subject, I would like to have your opinion
regarding how ISC can claim a trademark on BIND, assuming
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interestingly enough, the WRT54G is capable of gigE.
Probably not at full speed, though. Its only an ARM
First, the firmware in the device is Linux and it can be upgraded and
changed by the owner in any way that they want. Many people have worked
, or is it the ages-old
source-quench attack?
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rudi Starcevic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Essential ICMP
No, that would be wildly wrong.
Necessary messages: (never block)
3 Destination Unreachable
(block code 4
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But even if they did purchase the copyright from Berkeley, we are talking
about what amounts to packet signatures. Fair use allows one to create
interoperable products. [DMCA 1201(f), I think].
You can't purchase a copyright to a trademark,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:53:26PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
Empirically is because BIND9 attempts to detect other BIND9 servers, and
if it thinks the other server isn't BIND9, then it uses the traditional
protocol. So it will work so long
See http://www.iadl.org/sorbs/sorbs-story.html
SORBS seems to be collecting a lot of sensitive information to view
listings:
Name:
Preferred Login ID:
Password:
Confirm Password:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
Mobile Phone:
Email Address:
Company:
Autonomous Systems Number:
Security Question:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
Just wondering how many have transitioned to djbdns from bind and if so
any feedback.
DJBDNS is just about the best cache there is. The nameserver is also good.
Security is a good reason to switch to djbdns. Good performance is
another.
But switching
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
Why is it when I google AV8 I get an abit motherboard and not your
company?
Top of the list when I google av8 is our offices page.
Odd, no website at www.av8.com. Do you sir have a network of
any sort?
There's a website. Try www.av8.net.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
Having read this diatribe I can only catagorize it as mis-informed and
state unequivocably that Brian McWilliams has no clue whatsoever who
runs SPEWS. (please see myriad interviews I have down with BMcW).
Brian McWilliams makes no claims about who
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:03:37AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
Several previous security vulnerabilities in BIND is one strike against.
You know perfectly well that BIND9 isn't the same code as BIND4 or BIND8;
it's a complete rewrite
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Surely, you aren't saying that is somethig wrong with that or that they
are making non-compliant product just because they choose to use different
proprietary protocol when two of their products interact with each other
(while still supporting
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Well ok, what maybe wrong is that they still call it AXFR instead of
clearly calling it something like AXFR-BIND9.
Agreed.
In any case BIND folks got properly punished for attempting to do it and
as long as they support standard way and
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, David Conrad wrote:
As far as I know, BINDv9 complies with the AXFR protocol.
Very, very technically, (and only due to the unresolved vagueness in the
AXFR RFC), this is true. But it is isn't exactly honest. Every
implementation including BIND interpreted the vague
On 11 Apr 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
i can see from the tailings that a lot of you are not only reading dv8's
posts, but replying to them. i'm trying to sort out the part of the
result that's meaningful in spite of that poison.
Wow. Schoolyard namecalling. You, know. I'm reminded a lot of
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is rather odd, if you agree that SORBS is a bunch of nutjobs, where's
the mudslinging?
[ snip ]
Violation of trust on other projects is another. e.g. Exactis V. MAPS,
Several MAPS employees
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Kevin Oberman wrote:
When Paul took over support of BIND at about 4.4, it was a horrid mess
and rapidly moving toward death.
As long as we are getting history out, It was moving towards death as a
_result_ of Vixie involvment from 1987-1994. I knocked heads with Vixie
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem arises when you are trying to push signal (spam) to a
non-cooperating recipient. I've seen spam that's so obfuscated that it's
unclear whether it's trying to sell me a R00leckss or medications. At
that point, it may be able to pass
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
Unblocking on customer request is an expensive operation, for both the
ISP and the customer.
And they frequently assume that network operations changes are
free---Comcast reported that it would cost $58 million to implement port
25
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
Err, not likely. SPF came out, and now bots can find the ISPs closed
relays with very little trouble at all.
AFAIK bots use the MX of a parent domain of the infected machine's
hostname to find an outgoing
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
The problem has always been that ISPs do not see any tangible benefit to
stopping spam *leaving* their networks.
And just what blacklists work to detect spam in outgoing email?
Spam leaving the network is stopped as soon as abuse complaints roll in.
--Dean
On 4 Apr 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
Do you want an Internet where your provider decides for you, with whom and
when you are allowed to communicate? Or do you want to decide for yourself
whether to accept or not accept the
Ok, lets get back on topic: (some cisco config for network operators:)
SORBS is relay testing again (see bounce below). BTW: for those networks
that only feel comfortable blocking illegal activity, this is a violation
of CAN-SPAM, because the message forges email headers, which is banned.
You
I wrote a response to his message, but the details are rather redundant
because no reasonable people have ever beleived them.
So, I will instead post Sullivan's messages to www.iadl.org. Since
possibly Nanog doesn't want to hear about all SORBS complaints, they can
be forwarded there for
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 05:57:13PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
There are consequences, of course, to doing irresponsible things, and to
misleading your subscribers, and to blocking email that your subscribers
didn't authorize you to block
Hi folks. A few points about Sorbs (I've also started a web site
www.iadl.org to track abuse of the internet for defamation purposes. The
web site isn't finished, yet.)
1) Someone said Sorbs is just Matthew Sullivan.
Well, _Sullivan_ said it isn't just him. Yeah, sure, that has
credibilty...
o could this be used as a dos and then become extortion?
has this actually happened, or is it just black heli?
It has happened, in a legal sense anyway. See Exactis V. MAPS. One of
Exactis' claims was civil extortion. (Claim 4 on complaint). Exactis
also claimed that MAPS could block
64 matches
Mail list logo
