On Wednesday 16 April 2008 17:47, Dave Pooser wrote:
>
> > It can be useful to explain the abuse desk as being just another form
> > of marketing, another form of reputation management that happens to be
> > specific to Internet companies.
>
> Is it?
.. SNIP good points about abuse desks ..
In
On Friday 19 October 2007 01:03, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i agree that it's something BIND should do, to be
> comprehensive. if someone is excited enough about this to consider
> sponsoring the work, please contact me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to discuss details.
Sounds like a really bad idea to me.
Th
On Monday 06 August 2007 16:53, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Is it a fairly normal practice for large companies such as Yahoo!
> And Mozilla to send icmp/ping packets to DNS servers? If so, why?
Some of the DNS load balancing schemes do this, I assume to work out how far
away your server is so
On Thursday 07 June 2007 23:15, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> I can't imagine this would fly in the US.
Such systems have already been ruled "unconstitutional" in the US.
> -- The Home Office Minister has already said he expects it in place,
> thats not far from a precondition of operation.
We are k
On Friday 25 May 2007 15:40, you wrote:
>
> It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way to
> change the policy before the contract term ends is to either move ICANN
> out of US jurisdiction (to brake contract terms) or to organise a
> grass-root uprising to replace ICANNs root
On Monday 21 May 2007 14:43, you wrote:
>
> I'll bet a large pizza that 90% or more could be relocated to a more
> appropriate location in the DNS tree, and nobody except the domain holder
> and less than a dozen other people will notice/care in the slightest.
More like 99% I suspect, but we've n
On Monday 21 May 2007 16:19, Tim Franklin wrote:
>
> > I wonder how the .de or .uk folks see things? Is the same true elsewhere?
>
> .co.uk generally seems to be understood by UK folks. .org.uk tends to
> cause a double-take. (The 'special' UK SLDs, like nhs.uk, are a maze of
> twisty turny thi
On Thursday 26 April 2007 11:32, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>
> I think your debugging tool is faulty, as a dig ns cnn.com
> @a.gtld-servers.net gives:
cnn.com is not www.cnn.com ;)
dig @twdns-03.ns.aol.com www.cnn.com ns
Although "doc" is very long in the tooth, at least the last version I was
us
On Thursday 26 April 2007 00:43, you wrote:
>
> A chap I know (for some reason) set his source port
> for queries to be port 53 and his DNS queries started to fail.
It was the default source port for DNS queries in some versions of BIND. And
may well still be (I don't do those versions of BIND).
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 18:35, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> The problem here is that the community gets screwed not the guy paying
> $8.95. If he was getting what he paid for- well who cares. The problem is
> everyone else.
At the risk of prolonging a thread that should die
Gadi forwarded a pos
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 15:59, Geo. wrote:
>
> initially I thought it was a dns problem
Irrelevant lame DNS server issue reported to SOA email address.
On Friday 30 March 2007 15:33, Wil Schultz wrote:
>
> Sorry of this is off topic:
Try SPAM-L, a lot of overlap between that and this group, but it exists for
these issues, NANOG doesn't (unless you are sending so much email it
adversely affects network stability).
> On another side note, if an
Is there a Yahoo! abuse contact around who will talk, and not just sended me
canned responses?
Their abuse team seems very responsive, but I fear they don't actually read
the whole email, but just hit the button for the most appropriate "canned
response" as soon as they think they know what is
On Thursday 08 March 2007 09:51, you wrote:
>
> Works fine from most places, but the connection is immediately closed from
> work.
Hmm, seems that blogspot.com is now 6 hops closer to us, and working fine.
6 hops missing were all internal to telewest.
Apologies for the noise.
Anyone have a tool that quickly measures the reachability of websites
subdomains of blogspot.com?
Search google for "site:blogspot.com $subjectofinterest"
i.e. chess
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
Works fine from most places, but the connection is immediately closed from
work.
Resolves to:
On Monday 19 February 2007 13:27, you wrote:
>
> people consider this to be a Windows malware problem. I consider it to
> be an email architecture problem. We all know that you need hierarchy to
> scale networks and I submit that any email architecture without
> hierarchy is broken by design and
Anyone have an email for him, could they drop it to me off list.
He seems to have stuff hosted with that the den of spammers at HopOne
Internet.
On the upside it seems there is at least one genuine service amongst the
address space we blocked at HopOne. But that is 1 address out of 32 class C
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 03:06, Jason Frisvold wrote:
>
> The argument there is that those users don't deserve to comment if
> they can't keep their computers clean, but let's get real.. Some of
> this stuff is getting pretty advanced and it's getting tougher for
> general users to keep their c
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:29, you wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
> > Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access
> > http://cisco.com?
>
> Forbidden
>
> You don't have permission to access / on this server.
>
> Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encounte
On Monday 11 December 2006 16:15, you wrote:
> > I use to slave "." which can save time on recursive DNS servers when they
have
> >a lot of dross to answer (assuming it is totally random dross).
>
> I'm not sure to understand your solution.
> You configure your name-server as a slave-root-server?
On Friday 08 December 2006 14:40, you wrote:
>
> For this reason, I would like that a DNS could response maximum to 10
> queries per second given by every single Ip address.
That may trap an email server or two.
Did you consider checking what they are looking up, and lying to them about
the TT
On Friday 08 December 2006 12:50, you wrote:
>
> CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html
I posted my rant a while back to save bandwidth;
http://www.circleid.com/posts/misleading_spam_data/
On Thursday 02 Nov 2006 14:54, you wrote:
>
> I'm thinking for every answered message sent to abuse (non autoresponder),
> one will likely see more than 7-10 failures.
It is a self fulfilling issue. Those abuse desks who deal with the issues you
rarely end up writing to, those who don't, you
On Monday 30 Oct 2006 21:06, you wrote:
>
> Is there a postmaster from MSN/Hotmail out there? Mail from my domain to
> any of yours is being junked and randomly blackholed. No progress has been
> made yet with the normal tech support.
I previously got responses from the advertised postmaster co
On Thursday 26 Oct 2006 13:45, you wrote:
>
> Is there a similar statistic available for Mac OS X ?
Now now.
> > "Of the 4 million computers cleaned by the company's MSRT
> > (malicious software removal tool), about 50 percent (2 million)
> > contained at least one backdoor Trojan. While this i
On Wednesday 25 Oct 2006 15:59, you wrote:
>
> just guessing but:
> 1) it's 'hard'
The reason the public facing DNS is poorly set up at the majority of
institutions is the IT guy says "lets bring it in house to give us more
control, how hard can it be?".
When if they had left it with their IS
On Friday 20 Oct 2006 00:35, you wrote:
>
> Here's a visionary article related to this topic, but
> at the root server level, even more of a delicate issue,
> but with the same principles as the one we're discussing:
No this is the difference between impersonation, and service.
I think one probl
On Thursday 19 Oct 2006 13:50, you wrote:
>
> Can you suggest me any objective reason in order to invalidate this
> proposal?
Been done to death here before, assuming it is the same sort of DNS hack as
the others.
Basically if you can guarantee that all DNS servers are used exclusively for
bro
On Tuesday 17 Oct 2006 03:32, you wrote:
> 205.150.100.214
Sorry - my mistake
Saw the 205.150 prefix and confused in with 205.152, which are totally
different of course.
bellsouth.net have sorted their issue (from our perspective).
On Tuesday 17 Oct 2006 03:32, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Anyone know whats up ? I have seen some strange routing depending on
> the payload's protocol to a site in one of their colos in Toronto.
Don't know if it is related, but we can't route email to bellsouth.net -- no
route to host. When I checked
On Monday 02 Oct 2006 23:30, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>
> All, this seems seriously NON-lame to me. Of course, testing and fixing
> the bug before it was put out there would have been less so. But think
> of this! A large company has actually admitted that it was wrong and
> backed out a problem!
On Friday 22 Sep 2006 11:39, you wrote:
>
> Is this unusual, or what? Are search engines supposed to be amongst the
> biggest user agents recorded on a typical website? How much trolling and
> indexing is considered 'too much' ?
Whenever it becomes a problem.
If you don't have enough genuine t
On Monday 18 Sep 2006 07:40, you wrote:
>
> I know the common wisdom is that putting 192.168 addresses in a public
> zonefile is right up there with kicking babies who have just had their
> candy stolen, but I'm really struggling to come up with anything more
> authoritative than "just because, no
On Friday 08 Sep 2006 15:21, you wrote:
>
> Could anyone point me to a market-share by-country overview of broadband
> provider in Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland). Any
> help would be appreciated.
Ovum use to do reports on European ISP market share, I think it covered
Sca
On Wednesday 16 Aug 2006 01:13, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
> > I've no doubt some captcha can be invented in ASCII, but this isn't
> > it.
>
> 'tis. It works for at least one blog platform, where I've never once
> ha
On Friday 11 Aug 2006 05:24, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > You should look after the automated tools (probably using a virus
> > scanner or something like this) and trigger a covert alert once they
> > are detected. If the spam sent out is of the right ki
On Thursday 10 Aug 2006 01:14, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> > Do you have any links or references?
>
> Just ask the user some basic question. E.g.:
>
> What is 2 added to 23?:
I've no doubt some captcha can be invented in ASCII, but this isn't it. AI
alr
On Wednesday 09 Aug 2006 18:28, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> 2. West african cities like Lagos, Nigeria, that are full of
> cybercafes that use this satellite connectivity, and have a huge
> customer base that has a largish number of 419 scam artists who sit
> around in cybercafes doing noth
On Tuesday 08 Aug 2006 15:03, you wrote:
>
> And, as usual, security is only costing you money.
To a first approximation 10% of all incoming net traffic is malware/abuse/junk
related, so if you are a residential ISP presumably 10% of outgoing bandwidth
is swallowed up this way.
So there ar
The increase in dispatch errors reported by BIND recently is explained by the
other ISC here;
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1538
So it looks like the error message was right, although some older versions of
BIND didn't do a good job of reporting the IP addresses involved.
My own exper
On Tuesday 01 Aug 2006 20:18, you wrote:
> Has anyone else seen an increase of the following named errors?
>
> Aug 1 01:00:09 morannon /usr/sbin/named[21279]: dispatch 0x4035bd70:
> shutting down due to TCP receive error: unexpected error
> Aug 1 01:00:09 morannon /usr/sbin/named[21279]: dispatc
On Thursday 27 Jul 2006 17:59, William Yardley wrote:
>
> Keeping in mind that they are not only a huge email provider, but also
> that their user-base is mostly not exactly tech savvy, I think Carl,
> Charles et al do a pretty good job over there.
I think Carl moved on to other things in AOL.
>
On Tuesday 25 Jul 2006 18:04, Henry Linneweh wrote:
>
> I think this operationally impact some people
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9001972
Anyone else note the irony that the domain names were registered through
domainsbyproxy.com so he is
On Thursday 13 Jul 2006 13:08, you wrote:
>
> The second part doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that having
> multiple, geographically disparate recursive name servers would be
> more likely to present an "alternative [view] of the DNS". (In fact,
> I can prove that's true in at least some
On Wednesday 12 Jul 2006 18:35, David Ulevitch wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:30 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 20:22, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >> I'm at a loss to explain why people are
> >> trying so hard to condemn something like this.
>
On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 20:22, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> I'm at a loss to explain why people are
> trying so hard to condemn something like this.
Experience?
On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 13:40, you wrote:
>
> Client sites with dedicated recursers are going to be presented with a
> challenge: if their servers use the recursers, then will they set up
> a parallel set of caching forwarding recursers for desktop-to-OpenDNS
> use, or will they simply let OpenDN
On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 07:19, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your
> computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having it done for
> you without your knowledge and/or consent.
Yes, one way you choose who breaks your DNS, the
On Monday 03 Jul 2006 16:26, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> We are very much anti-spam and I will look into Mark's issue - I'm
> looking through the tickets for abuse@ and there is no email sent in
> from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
I suspect he tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] which seems to be in rfc-ignorant.
On Monday 03 Jul 2006 06:16, you wrote:
>
> Forgive the relative noobishness of the question, but I've not had to deal
> with this sort of situation before. Should I be forwarding to RIPE?
I don't think RIPE will be that interested.
The address range gets connectivity from someone. I suggest re
On Friday 09 Jun 2006 12:22, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> (I'm starting to guess I'd finish sending these out faster if
> I stopped falling asleep on my keyboard so often... --Matt)
Get more sleep -- Nanog isn't worth losing sleep over.
> nice quotes on slides
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_t
On Friday 12 May 2006 23:47, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just
> > because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so
> > many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had
> > some weight in there too.
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is
> relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that
On the subject of which I'm in discussion with AOL to get email through that
contains something which is a known spammers
On Wednesday 29 Mar 2006 15:56, you wrote:
>
> Anyone know to whom you can report yahoo-hosted phishing sites (or
> redirects) and get someone who has half a clue? If you try to report the
> sites to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or use the online abuse web form, you get a lame
> message that says 'the emai
On Thursday 16 Mar 2006 04:23, you wrote:
>
> You might consider the following paper from IMC 2003: "On the
> Responsiveness of DNS-based Network Control" by Jeffrey Pang, Aditya
> Akella, Anees Shaikh, Balachander Krishnamurthy, Srinivasan Seshan,
> http://www.imconf.net/imc-2004/papers/p21-pang
On Wednesday 15 Mar 2006 14:16, you wrote:
>
> Let me help you become aware, then...
:)
> Some people don't believe it is a bug, and therefor don't see that
> anything needs "fixing".
Oh the one shown is a bug, and needs fixing.
> Feel free to, for example, send 2 consecutive queries for a re
On Wednesday 15 Mar 2006 02:32, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> And the dnscache resolver cache service in win2k and up.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318803/en-us
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/245437/EN-US/
Both these article say the DNS TTL is honoured by the cache. Microsoft may
have done som
On Tuesday 14 Mar 2006 07:11, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Sure seems like security is AWOL on the registrars agenda:
I thought we established last month that deleting domain names is a very good
way of messing up the entire Internet. See the thread on losing entire data
centres.
If you have an
On Tuesday 07 Mar 2006 08:13, you wrote:
>
> I understand, that from an American point of view this kind of restriction
> looks strange and is against your act of freedom, however here in Europe
> gambling is a state controlled business that supports the state economy and
> in most European countr
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 06:41, you wrote:
>
> I've seen more than one estimate that most computers *are* infected by at
> least one piece of malware/spyware/etc, (including numbers as high as 90%)
I've seen 95% quoted - certainly my experience if you go looking for malware
in recent Windows deskt
On Tuesday 07 Feb 2006 22:08, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, the filters at AOL are far less problematic than
> crude filters at smaller sites which simply use SORBS or
> bl.spamcop.net.
Not here, no one cares if some small bit player has stupid filters, but when a
significant v
On Friday 03 Feb 2006 15:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There's also the deeper question: Why do we let the situation persist?
> Why do we tolerate the continued problems from unreachable companies?
Economics. Some of those unreachable companies (the majority?) are huge
networks who your cus
On Wednesday 25 Jan 2006 22:31, Fergie wrote:
>
> "Of course, itÂ’s possible that this URL has gotten out to
> the public, which would increase the count (simply hitting
> the website increments the count by one). However, to my
> knowledge, this URL is only known in the security community.
The S
On Tuesday 17 Jan 2006 01:04, you wrote:
>
> Not having all your DNS servers in the same domain, or registered through
> the same registrar, isn't a "best practice" that has previously occurred
> to me, but it makes a lot of sense now that I think about it.
I think the general consensus in the DN
Doesn't this fall under bad things happen.
Hopefully it is very clear to all on NANOG that DNS changes can have
unforeseeable consequences, because of the nature of the delegation in the
DNS.
As such pulling DNS records (or zones) you don't fully understand the usage
of, as a response to a se
On Monday 09 Jan 2006 15:46, you wrote:
> What do you mean by "the authoritative name servers on different logical
> networks."
Whatever the logical division of IP routing is.
On the internet this is usually AS number, but the network engineers might
know of linkages between different network
On Monday 09 Jan 2006 21:26, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > It seems like maybe that is all too common. Are the 'best practices'
> > > documented for Authoritative DNS somewhere central?
> >
> > 2182
>
> yes, yes.. people who care (a lot) have read this
On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 02:54, you wrote:
>
> While it's tempting to make fun of Qwest here, variations on this theme -
I'll happily make fun of them. If the authoritative DNS servers were in the
same logical network, even if one was in Washington, and one in California,
they'd deserve it.
Use
On Friday 09 Dec 2005 14:57, you wrote:
>
> a mathematical study is going to come up with a result that is more
> meaningful.
The story is badly headlined.
The study is saying how many "canaries" do we need to keep the Internet safe,
or how big the immune system needs to be, not about a viral
On Thursday 08 Dec 2005 18:08, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> When accepting messages from anonymous sources, seldom does one know
> the source.
On the contrary, short of the tricks played on AOL to defeat their original
antispam system, TCP means you always know the source.
We manage to filter out ~9
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 diversity (or better software engineering).
Vendor diversity doesn't necessarily give you this, and you can get this with
one vendor.
Vendor diversity might be
On Friday 30 Sep 2005 9:37 am, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> spam and virus rating on outgoing is pointless nobody in their
> right mind is going to use them.
Whilst I think it is silly to do.
Why not drop emails that claim to be viruses or spam?
Of course why anyone would allow their servers
On Thursday 08 Sep 2005 3:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And when the corporate executives have a legal and moral obligation to
> generate income for the stockholders (barring a stockholder's resolution
> or other similar instrument dictating otherwise), what is one to do when
> "vast profit
On Thursday 01 Sep 2005 3:59 pm, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> get the school to contact netsol, they can authorize it without the
> sysadmin...
Note also the mail server for the domain used is up and running.
So the schools representatives may have an easier time getting the email
changes by s
On Wednesday 31 Aug 2005 5:34 pm, Peter wrote:
> Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I guess there may be a need for some updates of DNS services due to
> > the incident itself, or similar elsewhere, but in almost all cases
> > this can be overr
Not privy to directNic's full responsibilities, but of their public facing
responsibilities I'm not sure DNS admininstrative activities are worth
risking life and limb for.
I guess there may be a need for some updates of DNS services due to the
incident itself, or similar elsewhere, but in alm
On Thursday 25 Aug 2005 5:27 am, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >
> > This is an issue of both distribution and density, not just density.
>
> So you're saying the US is screwed because of unique geography? Or is that
> something poltical will can overcome?
Si
On Thursday 18 Aug 2005 9:20 am, Abhishek Verma wrote:
>
> My question is why cant we ban websites like, say, alqaida.com
> (hypothetical name), etc. from the whois database.
If we, is the US department of commerce, the answer is probably yes.
The only operational significance, is that there is
Anyone with clue at Wanadoo UK, or can put me in touch with someone, will do
at this point.
Specifically to do with their website hosting arrangements.
On Monday 25 Jul 2005 10:55 am, Peter Corlett wrote:
>
> Does 112 work on non-GSM phones?
In most of Europe dialing 112 on any phone on a public phone network, mobile
or fixed, should get you an emergency operator.
I think in some parts of Europe it may still get you the police, instead of a
On Friday 22 Jul 2005 4:39 pm, Eric Louie wrote:
> I have a client who is experiencing problems with sending mail to AOL. I
> am not resposible for their email service (yet) but I'd like to know if AOL
> has changed their policy on anti-spam / mail receipt for their customers
> (RBL, SORBS, rDNS
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhea
>d
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that t
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 2:57 pm, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> UNIRAS (UK Gov CERT)/NISCC:
> http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/al-20050524-00433.html
Seems to be similar to an issue discussed on Bugtraq in 1999 where they looked
to exploit the recursive nature of some DNS decompression impleme
At a guess supplying services the Comcasts and Verizons of this world haven't
managed to provide well, like DNS, Email, Webservices, and feeding trolls.
ADSL is virtualised here anyway, as it is almost all from the national
telecomms carrier. Some of my best friends own virtual ISPs, they aren'
On Monday 09 May 2005 6:46 am, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > -- Chris Keladis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just a guess, but perhaps with www.google.com returning NXDOMAIN the
> > gethostby* functions tried variations and ended up resolving sites like
> > www.google.com.net which inadvertantly sent
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 6:53 am, Colin Johnston wrote:
> Hey folks, just saw this info on UK Gov's ITSafe site
>
> http://www.itsafe.gov.uk/library/news/2005-news-02.html
>
> Call me old fashioned if you want
Get with the modern way Colin ;)
> but this seems crazy, If you ask me
> election time
Have to say we see no issues here with the worldnic.com nameservers, other
than they appear to be located on the same physical network.
I think people should post queries that fail, including date/time, and full
"dig" output for that query from the server they used, and the version of
recursiv
On Saturday 09 Apr 2005 8:29 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
At the risks of prolonging a thread that should have died Saturday.
> - dnscache used *more* CPU than BIND 9 in our environment, effectively
> ruling it out
dnscache opens a separate port for each request, thus making DNS spoofing
ha
On Friday 08 Apr 2005 11:00 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Which leads me to the question: Why are RFC 1918 addresses defined
> in a document rather than in an authoritative protocol feed which
> people can use to configure devices?
Because they don't change terribly often.
Indeed the ones in
On Monday 04 Apr 2005 11:06 am, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Although Microsoft probably did more to create the problem than
> anyone else, they finally have stepped up to the plate. In the last
> year they have been more successful than anyone else at fixing their
> piece of the problem.
Like any
On Monday 04 Apr 2005 9:56 pm, Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
>
> AOL blocks outbound 25.
In the UK they proxy outbound port 25, some of the time.
Blocking it would be far simpler for us, but I suspect create more support
calls.
Have to admit to being surprised at DENIC poor placing.
The only time I did a comparison, DENIC were by far and away the best European
TLD maintainers.
Okay there wasn't much competition, and I was looking at purely technical
aspects of how the TLD were arranged, but the results were so good
On Monday 28 Mar 2005 4:54 pm, John Payne wrote:
>
> This is _nothing_ to do with what you're running on the recursive
> nameserver. It is doing _exactly_ what it is supposed to do. Get
> answers, store in cache, respond to queries from cache if TTL isn't
> expired.
The answers from a recursive
On Tuesday 22 Mar 2005 7:37 pm, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> somehow I suspect more than just pr0n sites will end up in that 'adult
> content registry'. dont be suprised if sites critical of mormonism get
> blocked too. they can be as bad as scientologists in this respect.
Cynic. Porn alone will do eno
On Thursday 17 Feb 2005 8:11 pm, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Any chance of trying to get some granularity to this? As I understand
> their operation, there are enormous differences among the operations in
> different provinces.
220.175 550 ChinaNet Jiangxi not wanted here se
Finally our main email server seems to be able to contact relay.verizon.net -
so only a month of email gone. No idea if this is Verizon smelling coffee, or
just them whitelisting us.
Similarly it seems this weekend Hotmail are also happy to get email from us
again. Seems hotmail.com problem wa
We had to retrieve a domain from melbourneIT once, the kind of domain NO ONE
in the organisation would ever touch without asking me or the IT director
first!?! This was on the old ICANN transfer policy as well.
We bulk set register lock on all domains after that incident. But the whole
system
Aside from the general discussion I seem to have provoked - most of which may
not be relevant to my problem anyway :(
Has anyone any idea if @verizon.net email accounts will accept email from the
UK ever again?
Enquiring postmasters want to know.
Still seeing intermittent issues with hotmail
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 5:26 pm, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> When an incoming SMTP connection is made to one of Verizon's MX's, they
> allow it to proceed until the putative sender is specified, i.e. they
> wait for this part of the SMTP transaction:
I don't think this is the issue, as we aren't getti
Hi,
trying to pin down why so much email isn't making it recently.
We see issues with various big ISPs.
The most obvious is none of the three UK ISPs I have ready access to can
connect to port 25 on relay.verizon.net. (MX for all the verizon.net email
addresses). We can ping it (I'm sure it i
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
