Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]

> Subject: Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:02:02 -0400 > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:38:33 CDT, Chris Boyd said: > > > - I'd like to see an actual response beyond an autoreply saying that you > > can't tell me who the customer is

Re: Another cablecut - sri lanka to suez Re: Sicily to Egypt undersea cable disruption

> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:21:00 -0800 > From: "Scott Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Another cablecut - sri lanka to suez Re: Sicily to Egypt > undersea cable disruption > > > On Feb 1, 2008 6:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://www.marketwatch.com

Re: BGP Filtering

> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:16:04 -0500 > From: "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: BGP Filtering > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:51 PM, Dave Israel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I think I understand what you want, and you don't want it. If you > > receive a route for, say, 204.91.0.

RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

> Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic... > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:19:58 - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [[.. munch ..]] > > From a technical point of view, if your Bittorrent protocol seeder > does not have a copy of the file on its harddrive, but pulls it > in from the customer's compu

Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 13 16:53:32 2007 > From: Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:50:34 -0800 > Cc: "Chris Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,

Re: General question on rfc1918

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 13 09:12:04 2007 > Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" > From: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: General question on rfc1918 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:10:26 -0500 > > > > On 13-Nov-2007, at 10:08, Drew Weaver wrote: > > >

Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...

> From: Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again... > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:07:14 -0800 > > On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> From: Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Tue, 6

Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...

> From: Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:05:26 -0500 > Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again... > > Since this is verizon, one wonders why this has never been tried on > wrong, non-working phone numbers? > > Visit your local chevy dealer, no interest for 12 mo

Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity?

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 12 16:26:36 2007 > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:23:15 GMT > Subject: Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity? > > So, back to my original question: If you alert an ISP that "bad and > possibly criminal" activity is taking place by one of thei

Re: Question on Loosely Synchronized Router Clocks

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 18 10:57:15 2007 > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:55:19 -0700 > From: "Xin Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bora Akyol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Question on Loosely Synchronized Router Clocks > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > > > Ideally, yes, a protocol should not rely

Re: Cogent latency / congestion

> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:21:38 -0400 > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Cogent latency / congestion > > > > Does anyone have any details about the Cogent outage that started > this morning (9am GMT-400) and is still continuing ? If its a fibre > cut between Montville (NJ?) and Cleveland OH

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 20:15:50 2007 > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:09 -0500 > From: Carl Karsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy... > > > J Bacher wrote: > > > > Carl Karsten wrote: > > > >>> That is, if you extend domains o

Re: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff)

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 13:54:55 2007 > Subject: Re: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff) > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:47:06 -0400 > > On 4-Jun-2007, at 14:32, Jim Shankland wrote: > > > Shall I do the experiment again where I set up a Linux box > > at an RFC1918 address,

RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

> From: "Frank Bulk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks > Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:20:59 -0500 > > > If they can't hold the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then > > I guess I'll have to make up for their negligence on my end. > > Sure, block that /29, but w

Re: what registrars need to do with no incentive [was: Re: On-going ..]

> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:09:24 -0500 (CDT) > From: Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: what registrars need to do with no incentive [was: Re: On-going ..] > > On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > > > > > From: David Conrad <[

Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names

> From: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:33:08 -0700 > > > On Apr 2, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > > The recommendation was for registries to provide a preview of the > > next day's zone. > > I thin

Re: PG&E on data centre cooling..

> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:31:53 -0700 > From: Jay Hennigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: PG&E on data centre cooling.. > > > John Kinsella wrote: > > > I sorta wonder why the default is lights on, actually...I used to always > > love walking into dark datacenters and seeing the banks of GS

Re: NOC Personel Question (Possibly OT)

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 15 00:52:53 2007 > Subject: Re: NOC Personel Question (Possibly OT) > > K. Graham wrote: > > I was called a "nocling" but I doubt that would pass the HR test. > > > > I'm kinda partial to NOC Knuklehead. > There's always "Guru of Distributed Systems'. Reserv

Re: FCC on wifi at hotel

> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:38:10 -0500 > From: Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FCC on wifi at hotel > [[.. munch ..]] > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf > > I do suggest reading this. They can not legally bar you from > using the dev

Re: Every incident is an opportunity

> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:05:08 GMT > From: Brandon Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Every incident is an opportunity > > > > During the cold war American kids > > > were trained to hide beneath their desktops in caseof a nuclear > > > attack. Much good tha

Re: AFP article on Taiwan cable repair effort

> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:04:17 +0100 > From: "D.H. van der Woude" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: NANOG@merit.edu > Subject: Re: AFP article on Taiwan cable repair effort > > Thanks for the link, which brought me to the page > http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/submarine/vessels/index.htm > where their

Re: today's Wash Post Business section

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 20 21:49:49 2006 > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:48:06 -0500 > Subject: Re: today's Wash Post Business section > > > At 19:31 -0800 12/20/06, Thomas Leavitt wrote: > >Many people don't understand anything about how they access the Internet, > >they > >have a vague id

Re: SORBS Contact

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 9 22:00:58 2006 > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: SORBS Contact > From: Allan Poindexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:59:36 -0600 > > > Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should > Matthew> not be allowed to impose

Re: private ip addresses from ISP

> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:36:30 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: private ip addresses from ISP > > > At 09:22 AM 5/23/2006, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > > Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 03:33:34 -0400 &g

Re: private ip addresses from ISP

> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 03:33:34 -0400 > From: Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: private ip addresses from ISP > > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:30:37PM -0400, Andrew Kirch wrote: > > > > > 3) You are seeing packets with source IPs inside private s

Re: [Way OT] Re: Geo location to IP mapping

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 17 13:22:15 2006 > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > From: Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Way OT] Re: Geo location to IP mapping > Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:21:02 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > On May 17, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: >

Re: Geo location to IP mapping

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 15 17:42:13 2006 > From: Kevin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Geo location to IP mapping > Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:40:23 -0500 > > We use a Geo/IP location database. It's surprisingly accurate, with a > few exceptions. > [[ sneck ]] > > Comparing the

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

> From: Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400 > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote: > > The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side > > effect: distribution of

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006 > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400 > From: Alain Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 > > Fr

Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism

> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:29:02 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Alexei Roudnev wrote: > > > > > It's legal to have broken NTP server

Re: Have Yahoo! gone pink?

> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Have Yahoo! gone pink? > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:55:23 -0500 > > > --==_Exmh_1143669323_3096P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:28:26 GMT, Peter Corlett said: > > > Yahoo claim "After investig

Re: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 14 04:30:07 2005 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:32:06 + > Subject: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number > Policy Proposal > > > I'm also not thrilled with "2-byte only" and "4-byte only" A

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 10 16:56:38 2005 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:55:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > From: Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity > > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote: > > > B

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 10 15:55:48 2005 > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity > From: Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:54:37 -0800 > > > On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 17:37

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 10 06:58:38 2005 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:57:34 + (GMT) > From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was > Re:Clueless > anti-virus ) > > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 9 17:10:00 2005 > Cc: "Steven J. Sobol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Geo." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > nanog@merit.edu > From: Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was > Re:Clueless anti-virus ) > Date: F

Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 9 13:59:30 2005 > nanog@merit.edu > From: Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was > Re:Clueless anti-virus ) > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:58:15 -0800 > To: Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 4 22:34:54 2005 > Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 04:30:26 + (GMT) > From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) > To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Church, Chuck" <[EMAIL PROT

Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 4 17:19:43 2005 > Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:18:29 -0800 > From: Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) > > > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > An

Re: a record?

> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: a record? > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:45:21 -0500 > > On Nov 20, 2005, at 6:17 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > > >> Unfortunately, we now have decades of experience in cybersecurity > >> that > >> this isn't true. It appears to work for

Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making

> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:15:40 + (GMT) > From: "Edward B. Dreger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making > > RB> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:43:54 -0600 (CST) > RB> From: Robert Bonomi > > RB> Re-coding to el

Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making

> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:21:20 -0500 > From: Eric Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > > I'm not exactly "in the know" on this one, but the heap-overflow advisory > that we've seen indicates that the IOS updates Cisco put out are not patches > for this problem: > > "Cisco has d

RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making

> Subject: RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:11:52 -0500 > From: "Hannigan, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > > > It's an argument for vendor diversity. > > > > No it is an argument for code base

Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation)

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 15:33:02 2005 > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 -0700 > Subject: Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id > seperation) > > Stephen Sprunk wrote: > [snip] > > >> Other people use this term in very different ways. To some people > >>

Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path

> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:15:26 +0530 > From: Abhishek Verma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Order of ASes in the BGP Path > > > Hi, > > Is the order of AS numbers (except for perhaps the first one which > denotes the AS the route was originated from) in the AS_PATH in BGP > important? In fact, d

Re: ISP's In Uproar Over Verizon-MCI Merger

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 24 23:28:58 2005 > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:27:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Daniel Golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lewis Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > NANOG list > Subject: Re: ISP's In Up

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 19 14:37:28 2005 > From: Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:31:42 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls > > > > Can't one still get minimal phone service which charges a toll on > every phone

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 19 14:26:54 2005 > From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Robert Bonomi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:53:43 -0500 > Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *NOT* "other people's fraud". Just when you have 'intra-LATA&

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 18 11:04:41 2005 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls > To: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nanog@merit.edu > > > > > --- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 18 01:47:56 2005 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:44:59 -0400 > From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: New N.Y. Law Targets Hidden Net LD Tolls > > > > On 8/17/2005 10:04 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > > A new law that's ap

Re: speaking of lynn...

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 12 22:11:34 2005 > Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:08:22 +0200 > From: Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog list > Subject: speaking of lynn... > > [[.. munch ..]] > > Cisco's lawyers are sending out cease-and-desist notices to Web sites > that have published a

Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN

> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:06:05 + (GMT) > From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: UUNET connectivity in Minneapolis, MN > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > we had a loss of comercial power(coned) in the downers grove terminal. > > terminal is up on

Re: Your router/switch may be less secure than you think

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 3 09:07:20 2005 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Your router/switch may be less secure than you think > From: "Robert E.Seastrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:58:53 -0400 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > We sh

Re: VoIP operators given 120-day deadline to implement E911 services

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 19 13:38:03 2005 > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:37:54 -0400 > From: Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: VoIP operators given 120-day deadline to implement E911 services > > > On 5/19/05, Bruce Pinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That last part ought t

Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 1 17:41:59 2005 > From: Chris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 17:41:40 -0500 > To: nanog@merit.edu > > > > On May 1, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > so, how does this work when you

Re: Verizon Offering Naked DSL in Northeast...

> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:14:01 -0700 > From: Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Verizon Offering Naked DSL in Northeast... > > > Andy Johnson wrote: > > > My speculation is that their billing/accounting sys

Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 1 13:19:44 2005 > Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:18:38 +0100 > From: Richard Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco > > > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:15:55 -0800 > "Dave Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Must we now r

Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 1 11:30:15 2005 > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:33:16 -0800 (PST) > From: Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Robert Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco > > > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Robert Boyle wrote: > > > Brillian

Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )

> To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors ) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:58:39 +0100 > > > > > Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a > > > > Because GPS doesn't work indoors. > > GPS works anywhere wh

Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors

> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:27:56 -0500 > From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robert Bonomi wrote: > |>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 26 12:37:1

Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 26 12:37:15 2005 > Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:35:31 -0500 > From: Eric Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > > > http://www.advancedippipeline.co

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 22 11:38:22 2005 > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:33:44 -0800 (PST) > From: Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Richard Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re:

Re: Delegating /24's from a /19

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 18:51:46 2005 > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:51:33 +1100 (EST) > From: Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Delegating /24's from a /19 > Cc: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > > >--==D714B409A8D84E671065=

Re: sorbs.net

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 14:28:29 2005 > To: Robert Bonomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: sorbs.net > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:28:17 -0500 > > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:42:24 CST, Robert Bon

Re: Delegating /24's from a /19

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 14:12:12 2005 > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:12:10 -0500 > From: Robert Blayzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Mike Sawicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Delegating /24's from a /19 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Either

Re: sorbs.net

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 13:21:45 2005 > From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:21:35 -0800 > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: sorbs.net > > > a few questions > > o could this be used as a dos and then become extortion? > has this actually happened, or

Re: sorbs.net

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 12:53:30 2005 > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:53:22 -0800 > From: Micah McNelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: sorbs.net > > > Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs > at some level. Do you really think opinion has a place in

Re: sorbs.net

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 15 11:59:40 2005 > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:21 -0800 > From: Micah McNelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: sorbs.net > > > Nanog, > > Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to > someone ASAP. No, I am not going t

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 4 11:44:17 2005 > From: Christopher Woodfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions... > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:45:54 -0500 > > > > On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote: > > > > > Perhaps it varies by state, but I thou

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:32:41 GMT > To: nanog@merit.edu > > "The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a > bill that would require Internet providers to block > Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also > target e-mail providers and search engines." > > http://news.com.com/Utah+gove

Re: AOL scomp

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 26 13:42:19 2005 > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:27:40 -0500 > From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AOL scomp > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:34:21AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote: > &

Re: AOL scomp

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 24 23:19:15 2005 > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:46:13 -0500 > From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AOL scomp > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:53:14PM -0500, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > Now here I would disagree. These are spe

Re: ICMP weirdness

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 18 16:01:42 2004 > Subject: Re: ICMP weirdness > From: Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:01:39 -0400 > > > On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > w

Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 12 20:41:45 2004 > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:09:10 +0530 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems > > > [EMAIL PROT

Re: SkyCache/Cidera replacement?

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 20 14:37:38 2004 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:31:03 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: SkyCache/Cidera replacement? > > > Hadn't it gotten to the point shortly before Cidera folded that the > > satellite bandwidth was so insufficient for a "full feed" that it was of > > qu

Re: Network Configuration Management Practices

> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:08:34 -1000 (HST) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Network Configuration Management Practices > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Carl W.Kalbfleisch wrote: > > : I am doing some independent research on Network Configuration > : Management Practices. I am trying to get inform

Re: 30 Gmail Invites

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 11 21:58:47 2004 > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 30 Gmail Invites > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:54:16 -0400 > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Vixie writes: > > > >

Re: Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts

> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:15:01 +0100 (BST) > From: Chris Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts > > |SPF verification query gets returns one of three kinds of result: > | 1) MISMATCH on point-of-origin vs domain 'authorized' senders. *VERY

Re: Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 8 12:05:02 2004 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts > From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 08 Sep 2004 16:59:51 + > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes: > > > ... That means that if I do get a mail p

Re: More on Sri Lanka fiber outage....

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 24 08:01:15 2004 > Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:57:29 +0100 (WEST) > From: Carlos Friacas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More on Sri Lanka fiber outage > > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Br

Re: Ship seized for cutting Sri Lanka's internet link

> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:53:37 +0100 (WEST) > From: Carlos Friacas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ship seized for cutting Sri Lanka's internet link > > > > *only* internet connection? No, not exactly the -only- connection. They had some satellite-relay capacity. *L

Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 20 10:07:59 2004 > Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites] > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:31 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 A

Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 12:58:57 2004 > Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites] > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:55:46 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Aug 19, 2004, at 1:39 PM, L

Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 12:43:05 2004 > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:43 -0700 > From: Lou Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: > > > > Joshua Brady wrote: > >

Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?

> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: Henry Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia? > > --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote: >>> >>> --- "Stephen J. Wilcox"

Research - Valid Data Gathering vs. Annoying Other

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs Annoying Others > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT) > From: John K Lerchey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs Annoying Others > > > Hi NANOG folks, > > We have a s

Re: low-latency bandwidth for cheap?

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 5 01:51:20 2004 > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:47:43 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jeff Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: low-latency bandwidth for cheap? > > > On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Jeff Wheeler wrot

Re: problems with covad.net 192.168 address space

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 2 17:30:06 2004 > Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:25:00 -0400 > From: Eric Kimminau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: problems with covad.net 192.168 address space > > > Hola! > > Anyone having problems with covad.net and 192.168 public broadcasts?

Re: ad.doubleclick.net missing from DNS?

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 27 11:37:36 2004 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ad.doubleclick.net missing from DNS? The A record for ad.doubleclick.net is missing from DNS. This is causing apparent web page sl

Re: 2511 line break

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 26 14:38:49 2004 > From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:54:38 -1000 > To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 2511 line break > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [6] % telnet scrapheap 2003 > > Trying 1

Re: Looking for recommendations for Datacenter off CA Faultline

David Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > > > > > Lots of stuff from Wall Street Financial houses set up their backups in > > Kansas City. > > Is there a backup site in those KC limestone mines? > > Only thing is, where's

anybody got functioning contacts at shaw.ca ?

Trying to notify them of virus-infected machines on their network. Sending to the address they have registered with 'abuse.net', gets: > From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jul 19 11:34:50 2004 > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:34:35 -0600 > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Returned m

Re: OT: Re: Critters

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, "Tom (UnitedLayer)" wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jeff Cole wrote: > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > Reliance Infocomm is installing 80,000 km of fiber in India. I wonder if > > > they have any tiger stories. > > > > Oh no. You find lions only in Kenya > > Lions and Tig

Re: OT: Re: Critters

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 12 14:51:58 2004 > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:31:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jeff Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "'nanog list'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OT: Re: Critters > > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jeff Cole wrote:

Re: "it appears a beaver picked it up and chewed it in half"

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 8 23:42:27 2004 > From: "Scot Bryhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: "it appears a beaver picked it up and chewed it in half" > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 00:38:50 -0400 > > > > Scot, > > > > Here's what we received from the Assocaited Pres

Re: Need 3M System Admin contact

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 10:35:42 2004 > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dave Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: NANOG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Need 3M System Admin contact > > > Dear NANOG, > > Anyone know how to contact responsible mail admin for 3M corp? The