Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I really like Google. I like what they do. But lately, their security
team is a joke. I had a problem with their POP Gmail service and the
advise I got from their Gmail team was to turn off my CA EZ antivirus
and my ZApro firewall and to try again and see if the problem
On 8 May 2005, at 21:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com is at least two machines, but much more
> likely to be at least two clusters of machines ... :
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 232 IN A 64.233.185.27
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 232 IN
On 8 May 2005, at 17:07, aljuhani wrote:
Well I am not a DNS expert but why Google have the primary gmail MX
record
without load balancing and all secondaries are sharing the same
priority
level.
Huh ?
[...]
1888 (97%) messages were gated through Gmail's Primary mail server
(gmail-smtp-in.l.go
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 5/8/05, aljuhani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well I am not a DNS expert but why Google have the primary gmail MX record
without load balancing and all secondaries are sharing the same priority
level.
Has it occured to you that there are other ways of load bal
On 5/8/05, aljuhani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I am not a DNS expert but why Google have the primary gmail MX record
> without load balancing and all secondaries are sharing the same priority
> level.
Has it occured to you that there are other ways of load balancing
mailserver clusters tha
Hank Nussbacher wrote,
>
> I really like Google. I like what they do. But lately, their security
> team is a joke. I had a problem with their POP Gmail service and the
> advise I got from their Gmail team was to turn off my CA EZ antivirus and
> my ZApro firewall and to try again and see if the
At 02:18 AM 08-05-05 +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
"DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
at a location which provided this:
http://img179.echo.cx/img179/7959/googlehacked7to.jpg
[or]
http://img241.ec
>> If you're not part of the solution
> Precisely. Please review the data before posting 'omg google
> was hacked!' to public mailing lists.
bingo! from all appearances
o google made a dns boo boo which partially damaged their own
service for somewhat less than an hour. and they pub
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:09:40AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
> Well, Matthew, my boy, it appears to have been more than a
> simple spyware incident on a Mac or two.
>
> If you're not part of the solution
Precisely. Please review the data before posting 'omg google was hacked!'
Well, Matthew, my boy, it appears to have been more than a
simple spyware incident on a Mac or two.
If you're not part of the solution
- ferg
-- "Matthew S. Hallacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:18:19AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone else
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:18:19AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
> "DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
> at a location which provided this:
All of the "hack" evidence is from people looking
Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
"DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
at a location which provided this:
http://img179.echo.cx/img179/7959/googlehacked7to.jpg
[or]
http://img241.echo.cx/img241/6208/googlemsn3lp.png
Seems more than si
12 matches
Mail list logo
