On 4/23/19 8:35 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Get your own router if you're worried about your Wifi Password being
known
by Comcast. Or change to WPA2 Enterprise, but I'm guessing that isn't
supported on the router...
Original post seems to be someone that bought a used modem/router
combo. Since
Jack Bates wrote:
It works fine for large ISPs and colocation providers; especially those
who run abacus to process large volumes of reports and keep their time
well spent. If you spend 2 hours on a feedback loop without any actions
having to be taken, you're definitely doing something wrong.
Seth Mattinen wrote:
About two years ago, maybe less, Sprint was doing some maintenance in
California and was moving stuff through an alternate path in Arizona.
However, while the CA path was off, someone took a backhoe to the AZ
path. Neither the planned outage, the cut, nor myself were in th
William Herrin wrote:
I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for
reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and
later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a
very modest need for bandwidth and addresses (think: T1's and a few
dozen
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since nobody mentioned it yet, there are now less than 1000 days projected
>> until IPv4 exhaustion:
No worries, the Internet is going to end in 2010, and the world ends on
December 21, 2012. I don't think we'll be nee
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Becausewe wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting
worldwide interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on
strict validation...
The SMTP ship has already sailed, so trying to change the behavior of
email would be difficult.
I do, howeve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I'm being asked to verify my address because some malware found my address
on a hard drive and stuck it in the From: field. I'm sorry, but if you're
asking me to verify that, it *is* a burden - you are admittedly *starting off*
assuming that it's bad and *needs* some
Dave Pooser wrote:
I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it was mildly abusive, and stopped) and
typically blocked 2-3 spams per day. In fact, I had more FPs than legit spam
blocked by that method.
2-3 spams a day? That
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Where did you get that 99% #?
Statistics from my own mail server. Yours may vary. In the course of 6 months,
on one honey-pot email address, I received about 10,000 spam messages that were
classified as from forged addresses by spam assassin. I'm sure you are fa
Dave Pooser wrote:
Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
gets through to the end user. I figure if they think I'm gonna filter their
mail for free, well, they get what they pay for. :^)
And that is probably just fine, as 99% of the true spam comes from e
Frank Bulk wrote:
2) DSL and fiber have limitations, too. The modulation and spectrum width
can vary, but most MSOs have their forward configured with a maximum of
around 38 Mbps (256-QAM, 6 MHz wide) and the return in the 9 Mbps range
(64-QAM, 3.2 MHz wide). Charts here:
Forward: http://www.
Martin Hannigan wrote:
O&M, etc. We already know that the givens are that it's generally
socially unacceptable to filter, but without Comcast's motivation
being know, it's hard to speculate as to the "why" they did it. Let's
not.
It's not at all hard to imagine WHY. In fact, it's almost a gi
Eric Spaeth wrote:
It's worth noting that the traffic Comcast is filtering is called out in
their Terms of Use in the "PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES" section,
paragraph xiv. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
That section could be applied to every application that you would run on
your
Mike Lewinski wrote:
I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine,
Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over
443/tcp?
Most vendors claim to be able to look into the payload and determine
that it is p2p traffic instead of http/https traff
I'm looking to see if anyone has used the "privilege" configuration
options on Cisco routers and switches to control interfaces that users
are allowed to configure.
I'm looking to allow a certain set of our users to only configure a set
of interfaces, while allowing our top-level operations
15 matches
Mail list logo
