pardon me for resurrecting this topic...
For sites that are built in caves, how do they deal with cabling ?
In the pretty pictures of the swedish site, there didn't seem to be an
obvious raised floor. And it appeared to be solid concrete floor between
the wings containing the systems. And no
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet
switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily than
direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not
be mission critical. Treating it as such raises the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Internet can be mission critical. (Well, not really, but it's =20
trying.) And for something mission critical, a single point, no =20
matter how well reinforced, is not good enough.
It may not be mission critical for any one particular client, but when
you
I think I may have found a spin for the political statements: With the
USA government so focused on blaming axis of evil countries for all
its woes, perhaps the statement was really meant to say that should
evil country setup some botnet attack against our systems, the USA
would retaliate by
William Hamilton wrote:
If it's going to literally shot down an attack like an AA weapon, are
they planning on physically launching projectiles at compromised machines
across the world and destroying them?
The politician saw the episode of Star Trek where 7 of 9 typed in a
few computer
I have a big problem with politicians making technical decisions that
may look good at the politicial level but make no sense at the technical
level.
fighting back implies that your own facilities will be busy pinging
thousands of bots to death around the world. Yeah, smart. Looks good
during a
William Allen Simpson wrote:
But I can dig and traceroute. I'm pretty sure this isn't an ideal (or
standard conforming) setup. But it shouldn't have been swamped, as seems to
be akamaized.
I don't have traceroutes kept, but during that night when Pelosi
announced the bill was available for
Google not counting electricity losses from power cords etc gives the
image that it doesn't really want to account everything and want to skew
the numbers as much as possible.
I would be far more interested in a metric that shows the amount of
power used for each MIPS of CPU power (or whatever
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/business/30pipes.html?partner=rssuserlandemc=rsspagewanted=all
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't this more of a case of traffic
growing outside of the USA which means that traffic within the USA
represents a smaller share of the total
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Most Asian providers (at least Northern Asia) use USA, Atlantic path to
get to Europe. The capacity going Westt isn't that high in comparision,
so the extra latency hit is well offset by the much reduced cost.
I take it voice would have priority for use of the
re: intercepting port 25 calls and routing them to the ISP's own SMTP
server.
Consider an employee of chocolate.com working from home. he connects to
Chocolate.com's SMTP server to send mail, but his ISP intercepts the
connection and routes the email via its own. The email will then be sent
by
Pardon my ignorance here, but wouldn't it be much simpler if the so
called tier 1 networks were to do the filtering work so that none of
downstream BGP peers would see the bad announcements ?
If some network in italy sends out some bogus route for a site, this
should be blocked by a few tier 1
Joe Maimon wrote:
How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break
(whether or not it increases revenue or decreases costs)?
I see it in a different way.
At one point, a corporation's accountants decide that growth through
acquisition of new customers will slow and the only
Dave Crocker wrote:
I have always understood the issue to be the presence or absence of
unfettered
competition. Competition is good. It's lack is bad.
The problem is that it is rather hard to enable full competitive
environment in the last mile. No city, no citizen wants to have 300
wires
Re: the tool
My DNS server does not serve the outside world. Incoming packets to port
53 are NAT directed to an non-existant IP on the LAN.
The tool uses my internet facing IP as my DNS server and tells me I am
vulnerable. Since, from the internet, connecting to that IP at port 53
will not get
one note about whether to filter at receiving SMTP server or later.
The receiving SMTP server is the one that has the conversation with the
sender.
Rejecting mail from servers having an un-backtranslatable IP is best
done right away by the receiving server right after the HELO command by
issuing
Scott Weeks wrote:
How'd you do that? I use FF on FreeBSD, but parhaps there're similar
settings.
Since a few people asked.
in the url line: about:config
This is the magic incantation that gets you a page with just about all
configuration settings.
you can serach for a particular setting
re: reverse DNS and emails.
There are well documented and fairly simple tasks to reduce spam.
requiring rdns, using rbls and blocking certain IP blocks goes a long way.
The biggest problem however are outfits like microsoft whose hotmail/msn
properties have undocumented logic which confirm
John Levine wrote:
I own iecc.com. A group of educators in Minnesota own iecc.org. A
speculator in the UK owns iecc.net. Which, if any, of us gets first
dibs on iecc.thisisgreatstuff?
Well, that would depend on whatever policies the owner of
thisisgreatstuff has.
More importantly, who
While doing the groceries, I got to think about this issue.
There have been complaints in the past about difficulty in getting new
legitimate TLDs approved by ICANN. (image of ICANN being too USA centric
etc etc etc).
So I understand a move towards a more documented and logical process
to get
20 matches
Mail list logo
