On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM, explanoit wrote:
> As a top-posting IT generalist pleb, can someone explain why Google/Yahoo
> did not already encrypt their data between DCs?
> Why is my data encrypted over the internet from my computer to theirs, but
> they don't encrypt the data when it goes out
As a top-posting IT generalist pleb, can someone explain why
Google/Yahoo did not already encrypt their data between DCs?
Why is my data encrypted over the internet from my computer to theirs,
but they don't encrypt the data when it goes outside their building and
all the fancy access controls t
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> > Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
>> > removal of taps? :-)
>>
> No need for intrusive te
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> > Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
> > removal of taps? :-)
>
No need for intrusive techniques such as direct taps:
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/x
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
> removal of taps? :-)
>
No need for intrusive techniques such as direct taps:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1494884
"Of all the
In message <5272e4a6.9080...@dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker writes:
> On 10/30/2013 9:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > As I think I've said before on this list, when we tried to get
> > consensus on that claim in the DNSOP WG at the IETF, we couldn't.
> > Indeed, we couldn't even get consensus on th
163.com (as well as 126.com which you don't have listed) is a bit of a
special case.
It's a Chinese site that offers free email address as well as a very
popular portal site - think of it as the Chinese equivalent to Yahoo or
Hotmail.
Whilst it's certainly true that a lot of spam originates from
On 10/30/2013 9:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As I think I've said before on this list, when we tried to get
consensus on that claim in the DNSOP WG at the IETF, we couldn't.
Indeed, we couldn't even get consensus on the much more bland
statement, "Some people rely on the reverse, and you might w
>In the last few hours it has picked off multiple messages from each of these:
>caro...@8447.com
>jef...@3550.com
>ronal...@0785.com
>kevi...@2691.com
>debora...@3585.com
>kimberl...@5864.com
>sara...@0858.com
>zav...@131.com
>qgmklyy...@163.com
>pjp...@163.com
>fahu...@163.com
>danie...@4704.com
>
John Levine wrote:
> Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without
> matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking for
> it is a very effective heuristic.
Leading digit is clearly in widespread use beyond 3com & 1and1. One of the most
effective heur
>Mail admins wanting matching forward/reverse DNS and hostnames that
>don't "look dynamically generated" is probably more of a human than an
>RFC thing:
Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without
matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking
for
I have several clients who have cisco Metro Ethernet switches on Fiber
circuits. The provider just provided the switch and expects the client to
deal with the power. The rational is if the switch is not up it's not our
fault.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson
MTCNA CCNA MTCRE MTCWE
Was the unplanned L3 DF maintenance that took place on Tuesday a frantic
removal of taps? :-)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jacque O'Lantern <
> jacque.olant...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-secur
13 matches
Mail list logo
