> 135 is, indeed, blocked by Comcast.
What about ICMP (24.218.168.0 subnet) ? I was informed ports 135-139 and
were blocked only.
>
> --
> Brandon Ross AIM:
BrandonNR
> Principal IP Engineer ICQ:
2269
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> Well, default-configured Microsoft applications have an
> application that lets you send a machine popup dialog boxes;
> it's been discussed here recently because spammers abuse it
> and (related discussion) it uses Port 135, so it mi
> > ... probably most of the Abuse issues (especially via email) would
> > continue to be ignored. Noone wants to handle that stuff. But
> > someone(s) must handle that stuff.
>
> the underlying question is, "or else what?"
* Fortunately, at least where I was, there is a knowledge of AUPs having
Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please
contact me ...)
> Think abou
Micahel,
I think class action is a less effective approach here. Micr0$0ft has
vast resources ready to take on any large single lawsuit and make it a very
expensive and resource intensive process for their opposition. On the other
hand, with a low (around $25 last I looked) filing fee and virtua
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:48:51 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Sounds like a great example to put
> before the judge when you sue Microsoft.
> Can anyone say "class action"?
Microsoft can fight one class action suit a lot more easily than they can send
lawyers to Christiansburg, Virginia on 8 separ
>> It reminds me of the Netgear and U of Wisconsin time server SNAFU.
>> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/
>The difference is that Netgear admitted responsibility and worked with
>UW to cope with the issue. Further, Netgear has funded UW in it's
>cleanup efforts and generally stepped
--On Monday, September 29, 2003 2:44 AM + Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> the whole end-to-end argument depends on uniform clue distribution
> for scale.
...
Getting vendors to supply more appropriate defaults offers better
scaling possibilities. Your complaint might fix one user'
to Comcast a while ago. There is no more attbi
clue.
If you find someone, add these to the list of misconfigured Windows
users trying to "update" other people's DNS servers.
acl "bogon" {
// Annoying dynamic DNS updates from this address
68.39.224.6;
I think the solution is for those DNS operators affected who have not
signed an EULA for the system that is hammering their DNS to sue Micr0$0ft
for the costs incurred in dealing with the issue. Making Micr0$0ft
play legal whack-a-mole may be the only strategy with a chance of success
here.
(I rec
> ... probably most of the Abuse issues (especially via email) would
> continue to be ignored. Noone wants to handle that stuff. But
> someone(s) must handle that stuff.
the underlying question is, "or else what?"
this is an assymetric-benefit situation. when folks ignore reports from
noncustom
anyone who doesn't have the windows messanger service disabled or
fire-walled. gets huge piles of messenger spam so it will look just like
more messanger spam to those people.
joelja
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
>
> Some cable user's machine running default-co
> but no matter how good an
>idea it is, my complaint is still that sending e-mail toward the whois
>contact for a network or AS# should elicit a clueful reply, and if it
>doesn't, then the key word we're looking for is "cost shifting". (and
>that, in case y'all wondered, is why this is relevant
>Unfortunately, telling end users to disable a default setting is
>rather difficult these days.
Not if it's done the right way using the right language.
For instance...
Did you realize that your computer is probably wasting
precious bandwidth and slowing down your Internet
connect
L PROTECTED])
Systems and Network Administration,
and Telecommunications
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: ISPs blocking port 53? (was Re: Annoying dynamic DNS update
> whats disturbing is how many contact addresses for both whois and AS#'s
> bounce
sure, i agree, that's disturbing. however, it's a different problem than
having mail get ignored or ignorebotted and then depref'd so low that nobody
even bothers to call you or let you know whether a human ever
WCS> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:05:36 -0500
WCS> From: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS"
[ moderately snipped ]
WCS> Some cable user's machine running default-configured MS apps
WCS> is sending Paul dynamic DNS queries that it shouldn't,
WCS> Well, default-configured Microsoft applications hav
Some cable user's machine running default-configured MS apps
is sending Paul dynamic DNS queries that it shouldn't,
because somehow it's decided he's got an interesting destination
(I'm guessing f.root-servers.net ?)
Paul wants the user to get an error popup about it.
Well, default-configured Mic
> > the whole end-to-end argument depends on uniform clue distribution
> > for scale.
> ...
> Getting vendors to supply more appropriate defaults offers better
> scaling possibilities. Your complaint might fix one user's computer,
> Microsoft updating the default behaivor would fix tens of millio
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I've been thinking how to use ICMP to signal different types of
> > responses; and even how "smart" edges on both ends of a communication
> > could establish and enforce policies. Most of these are non-malicious
> > communications involving misconfigured
> How should an ISP tell the difference between "good" DNS packets and "bad"
> DNS packets?
the bad ones are the ones people complain about.
> You aren't complaining about your dynamic update packets or even all
> dynamic updates. You are complaining about someone sending you packets
> you don't
Perhaps (to meld threads...) those DNS queries belong at
64.94.110.11?
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brian Bruns
> Sent: September 28, 2003 6:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Paul Vixie
> Subject: Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone
> from attbi please contact me ...
From: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please
contact me ...)
>
> > Back in beta days, the official explanation given was that t
On 28 Sep 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Specifically, I want to know why Comcast makes itself so hard to reach.
> I'll bet I could get them to talk to me about this host if it were DDoS'ing
> me, or if I aggressively NMAP'd it at 25Mbits/sec for 48 hours straight.
Based on the comments in many forums
The only way to reach Comcast (in my experience) is to get a phone number from
the customer having a problem. Sometimes that is slightly more helpful.
In the recent DC power outage it was clear that my power company did not want
to be reachable. The same is true for at less a couple of the domain
> Back in beta days, the official explanation given was that the DNS
> updating was a "value add" and that it would never be disabled as
> a default as a courtesy to corporate customers. Furthermore, MSFT
> folks have repeatedly said that the workaround is to simply configure
> your nameserver to
> > PS. why is this so hard?
>
> Are you talking about the kitchen sink protocol called DNS, or ...
Specifically, I want to know why Comcast makes itself so hard to reach.
I'll bet I could get them to talk to me about this host if it were DDoS'ing
me, or if I aggressively NMAP'd it at 25Mbits/se
-
From: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:30 PM
Subject: Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please
contact me ...)
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > noc@ and a
ind someone, add these to the list of misconfigured Windows
> users trying to "update" other people's DNS servers.
>
> acl "bogon" {
> // Annoying dynamic DNS updates from this address
> 68.39.224.6;
> 68.38.156.178;
>
no more attbi
clue.
If you find someone, add these to the list of misconfigured Windows
users trying to "update" other people's DNS servers.
acl "bogon" {
// Annoying dynamic DNS updates from this address
68.39.224.6;
68.38.156.178;
31 matches
Mail list logo
