-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Following up on a two year old thread, one of my clients just hit this
problem. The failure is not that www.pay.gov is not reachable over ipv6
(2605:3100:fffd:100::15). They accept (TCP handshake) the port 443
connection, but the connection then hang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Following up on a two year old thread, one of my clients just hit this
problem. The failure is not that www.pay.gov is not reachable over ipv6
(2605:3100:fffd:100::15). They accept (TCP handshake) the port 443
connection, but the connection then hang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 20:59 +, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I fixed it (and Netflix) by turning off IPv6 for all my users... but
> any chance this is a path MTU issue causing the apparent hang?
I fixed it by using the rpz feature of bind to disable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 15:32 -0500, Lee wrote:
> That's fine, but until someone is willing to work with them don't
> expect it to get fixed.
I am working with pay.gov.c...@clev.frb.org, trying to explain the
problem. They seem to think I should provi
> > I am working with pay.gov.c...@clev.frb.org, trying to explain the
> problem.
The intersection of government bureaucracy and technical issues is
frustrating to say the least. I just sent the message below, but have no
expectation that it will change anything.
==
On Fri, 2016-11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 2016-11-20 at 10:51 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> For example, you will not get this working if you have a lower MTU
> than 1.500, which is quite normal, not just for tunnels, but also
> because the PPP/others encapsulation in many acc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 11:26 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> And the advertised MSS was what? On my box I'm seeing 1220 for
> IPv6 compared with 1460 for IPv4. 1220 shouldn't see PMTU problems.
--> 2001:8d8:100f:f000::2d5 syn w/ mss 1440
<-- 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 10:22 -0800, Ca By wrote:
> Anyone have a contact at DOT or FRA that can solve this? It would be
> really nice if they remove the DNS record on www.fra.dot.gov
> until it works correctly, customers are complaining
Their S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 08:30 -0800, Damian Menscher wrote:
> So here's a modest proposal: log in as root and brick the
> device.
I strongly suspect that when the problem gets bad *enough*, someone will
do exactly that. Yes, it is illegal in many plac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> The gold standard, Spamassassin, does not. Indeed, the message to
> which I reply was scored by spam assassin as "SPF_PASS" even though
> you do not include NANOG's servers in the SPF record
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 09:24 -0700, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> So for DMARC+SPF to pass not only must the message come from a source
> authorized by the envelope sender domain, but that domain must be the
> same domain (or parent domain or subdomain) of t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 15:21 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Well you should be checking the correct TXT record for SPF.
> dig marketo-email.box.com txt +short
> "v=spf1 ip4:192.28.147.168 ip4:192.28.147.169 -all"
Hm, a closer reading of rfc7489 sheds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:33 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > In the American approach, if there are a significant number of road
> fatalities, then it's the drivers own fault and they should have taken
> more care. They are automatically to blame for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 17:04 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I would also note that a organisation can deploy RFC 5011 for their
> own zones and have their own equipment use DNSKEYs managed using RFC
> 5011 for their own zones. This isolates the organis
14 matches
Mail list logo
