On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:45:47PM -0800, Bruce Robertson wrote:
FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the
interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs,
H... we're not having this trouble. What are you using to propagate
your loopback
---
Subject: ATTN: Anyone with RBL clue at att.net
Something must be highly broken at ATT. I have been receiving tons of
emails in response to a Usenet posting I made months ago asking if anyone
knew how to get out of att.net's private RBL.
You might try writing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mm
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:17:56AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to find some small, cheap ammeters. I only need a readable
analog dial for current, no SNMP or anything fancy. I'd like to be able
to hardwire one to each individual circuit going into the racks.
Anyone know a
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know a model number? I can't seem to find anything like this on
radioshack.com.
(cc'd to nanog ..)
Shoot, I should have looked first. I can't find it either. I found
the note from January 2003 where I heard about it,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:24:36AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in
a PA-MC-2T3+ card for the 7206...I have at least four PA-MC-T3 cards, and
they're not going to work the way I want them to (unless I rate-limit them).
This
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:36:08AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote:
Hi Mark,
Yes, it's a point-to-point link.
Somebody else mentioned ethernet; I know (without specific
recommendation though) that you can run fiber and use some inexpensive
media converters on each end to produce something that
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:45:08AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:35:34AM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:24:36AM -0600, Claydon, Tom wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in
a PA-MC-2T3+ card
P.S. OWEN, PLEASE STOP CC'ING ME ON REPLIES. EITHER REPLY TO ME ONLY, OR
TO THE LIST (WHICHEVER YOU PREFER), BUT NOT TO BOTH.
pps: Lazily clicking reply to all and sending off a message (with an
unwanted *attachment* no less) cc'd to a bunch of people who don't need
duplicate
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:49:16AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
I found out that our outgoing SMTP servers have been blocked by
the msn.com MXes. In a nasty way, too -- no SMTP error, the TCP
connection is simply closed by them immidiately after establishing it.
We're not listed on
IN TXT tldtag field='email' value='[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in this case, the suggesion that TXT RR's be put alongside NS RR's *above*
the zone cut is your clue that the whole thing is a put-on. i guess this
author was being too subtle about it, so you didn't catch the humour.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:18:10PM +0100, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote:
Having a support model in which anyone can call any NOC about a
problem they're having does not scale very well.
I felt justified in calling UUnet. I know the conversation had
morphed by the time you made the above
11 matches
Mail list logo
