On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Matt Mills wrote:
> Why we don't use Bittorrent for the distribution of the satellite data:
>
> This is just where P2P and satellite data don't mesh. In order for the
> program to work and not be incredibly frustrating and boring, the tiles
> (imagery and elevation) have to
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
> If you're multihomed and using Cogent as a cheap bandwidth whore, does
> it matter if their cheap bandwidth gives you 155k routes instead of 168k
> routes? After all, if its cheap and off-loads enough traffic from your
> more expensive 168k route circuits
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> It would be important to make this a list of legitimate SMTP hosts
> only, and NOT a list of non-spammers, as the former can be determined
> through technical means (1) and the latter is open to endless debate.
> (As we can see with pretty much a
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> my last 10 survivors are at http://www.ehsco.com/misc/last-10-spams.eml
> the relevant data for them in order of occurrance is below.
>
> eight are CN, one is KR, one is Geocities, and one is dead
Different people get different spam, from different sour
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Rachael Treu-Gomes wrote:
> And tunnels in tunnels in tunnels...
>
> I see some deep recursion fun here.
I can see some nice routing loops coming up, with packets for
tunnel endpoints being routed through the tunnel interface
itself, etc... ;)
Rik
--
"Debugging is twice as
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Duane Wessels wrote:
> I've been collecting a list of things that are broken, or might break,
> now that the two most populated TLDs have A and MX record wildcards.
Makes me wonder why Verisign didn't use a (less harmful?) CNAME
wildcard ...
Rik
--
"Debugging is twice as h
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> What this means is, there is no such thing as a wildcard CNAME.
Funny...
$ host -t cname \*.TD
*.TD is an alias for www.nic.TD.
Rik
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> Distributing an RBL list is the easy part.
Why stop there ?
The generating of the list itself can be a P2P thing too.
You could peer with a group of people you trust and exchange the
list of IP addresses that send crap into each ot
Allan Poindexter wrote:
The functionality of my email is still almost completely intact. The
only time it isn't is when some antispam kook somewhere decides he
knows better than me what I want to read. Spam is manageable problem
without the self appointed censors. Get over it and move on.
Mark Jeftovic wrote:
Has anyone ever managed to open a dialogue with symantec (or comcast)
about that fscked up proprietary RBL they are using?
We're on the verge of just giving up on comcast
I know Sender Verification Callback has its issues, but maybe it
would make sense to only accept em
10 matches
Mail list logo
