It occurred unintentionally during an email account subscription change to
NANOG.
My bad :(
PS -
Randy Bush, is this any better? I.e., any more Microsog noise, herein?
Frank
...for the terrible grammar and incomplete sentences in the message I just
sent. It was the result of replying to a post while performing other tasks
and not taking the time to properly proofread before hitting send.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.t
Apologies on the triple post. Mea Culpa.
--
Jonathan M. Slivko
Systems Administrator/Consultant
Simpli Networks
646.461.6489 direct
208.330.8412 fax
www.simplinetworks.com <http://www.simplinetworks.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be priv
I apologize to everyone here for posting yesterday on an inappropriate
topic, which I have since moved to cisco-nsp.
Thanks,
= TC
--
Tom Claydon, IT/ATM Network Engineer
Dobson Telephone Company
L PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Loftis
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Apologies but...Verizon Postmaster?
>
>
> I have been trying for weeks to get in touch with someone who
> will respond
> with something oth
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> > In our case it's at the IP level. Our mailserver gets "connection refused"
> > from their "business" mail servers at "bizmailsrvcs.net". We got someone
> > on the phone who was supposed to look into i
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> In our case it's at the IP level. Our mailserver gets "connection refused"
> from their "business" mail servers at "bizmailsrvcs.net". We got someone
> on the phone who was supposed to look into it a week or so ago.
Have a look at the logs on your pri
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Michael Loftis wrote:
>
> > I have been trying for weeks to get in touch with someone who will respond
> > with something other than a form letter at Verizon. Can someone please
> > contact me off-list? My company (Modwest)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Michael Loftis wrote:
> I have been trying for weeks to get in touch with someone who will respond
> with something other than a form letter at Verizon. Can someone please
> contact me off-list? My company (Modwest) is being unilaterally blocked.
> I can't even send mail to
I have been trying for weeks to get in touch with someone who will respond
with something other than a form letter at Verizon. Can someone please
contact me off-list? My company (Modwest) is being unilaterally blocked.
I can't even send mail to abuse, postmaster, etc. from an @modwest.com
add
-
From: Vandy Hamidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 7/2/2003 3:35 PM
To: prue
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to NANOG
I would agree only under certain limited situatio
Andy Dills wrote:
Yes, but the original poster was dealing with DS3s connected to different
NAPs, which is why the packet out-of-order issue can be significant.
I'd say that a more significant issue is customer throughput. The nice
aspect of per conn is that it not only tends to keep a decent load
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Vandy Hamidi wrote:
>
> I would agree only under certain limited situations. Per packet load
> balancing COULD increase jitter, and if you're running VOIP (or similar
> protocols) could degrade performance. It could also affect TCP
> performance (on OSes not SACK enabled) as
e did quadruple over the single
T1.
-=Vandy=-
-Original Message-
From: prue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Vandy Hamidi
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to
NANOG
Vandy,
>Also, you m
Subject: Re: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to
NANOG
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mary Grace wrote:
> So, is it still true that we do not need anything more powerful than a 4500
> or 4700 to run this system? I believe that is true if we take default
> routes advertised by th
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mary Grace wrote:
> So, is it still true that we do not need anything more powerful than a 4500
> or 4700 to run this system? I believe that is true if we take default
> routes advertised by the upstream on both sides, and the two diverse-path
> circuits ARE being advertised
: [isp-bgp] Re: Newbie Cisco upgrade question,
:| apologies in advance:-)
:|
:| Wouldn't a 3640 or 3660 off of eBay do the same trick? We ran two
DS3's off a 3640 for a while with maxed out RAM. It worked for us.
:|
:| -- Original Message --
Just wanted to publicly apologize for posting HTML to the list. Thanks
to Robert Seastrom for pointing it out to me. Still not sure why it
posted as html.
Derek
turns out netscape does not honor domain specific htm/text settings as i
ahve been informned many times that html is sitll appearing...i have
switched clients to OE for nanog in plain text...:)
William Warren
May God Bless you and everything you touch.
My "foundation" verse:
Isiah 54:17 No wea
19 matches
Mail list logo
