On 7 Jan 2004 23:02 UTC Frank Louwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > generated twice per day, so NN is usually either 00 or 01.)
| > January 1970.) For example, a zone published on 9 February 2004 might
| > have serial number "1076370400". The .com and .net zones will still
| > be generated twic
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:01:35 -0400
"McBurnett, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think even if we get all the ones for this domain name today,
| assuming we can muster even man hours to get it today, another
| 5000 will be added tomorrow. And looking at my list We have US
| (a very small ISP an
On 7 Oct 2003 17:39 UTC Ezequiel Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| hi, can you resolve ftp.cisco.com?
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]# ping ftp.cisco.com
| ping: unknown host ftp.cisco.com
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]#
|
| something is wrong here
I can both resolve and reach it from opposite en
On 28 Aug 2003 16:07 UTC Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| AOL for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before
| they are allowed direct connections. ISPs would need to contact AOL,
| provide valid contact into and accept some sort of AUP (I shall not
| spam AOL...) and
Valdis Kletnieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) What *immediate* benefits do you get if you are among the first to
> deploy? (For instance, note that you can't stop accepting "plain old
> SMTP" till everybody else deploys).
The immediate benefit (as sender) is that you reduce the (now e
s to whether the telemarketers think they can get away with it!
--
Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology
ver and
the only way to tell the difference is by examining the connecting port as
seen coming from your server by the machine at next hop.
--
Richard D G Cox
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:33:11 +0200, "Pascal Gloor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Getting SPAM from 118.189.136.119 relayed by rr.com ?
|
| this network is not allocated, nor announced. I have been looking everywhere
| to find if it has been announced (historical bgp update databases, like RIS
| RI
