As the subject states,
mailer-dae...@messagelabs.com:
@ford.com:
Connected to 136.1.7.8 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 501 Sender domain must exist
As it obviously checks only the first MX record if there are A records,
and if there are none it rejects it. This while there are
We have a 10GigE connection with XO in Utah and have gotten little to no
response from XO on our IPv6 requests for months.
We finally got our L3 IPv6, but they don't have a complete routing table.
:Luke Marrott
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Lassoff j...@thejof.com wrote:
On
I'll get someone to contact Ford and see what they are running. From
google it looks like Exchange. Is this a known bug with Exchange? If so
I think there's bigger problems than messagelabs :)
Jeroen Massar wrote:
As the subject states,
mailer-dae...@messagelabs.com:
@ford.com:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately
worried. I figure it warrants a discussion.
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately
worried. I figure it warrants a discussion.
This is
Facebook Engineering makes their internal announcement -- to anyone who
follows that page:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/facebook-and-world-ipv6-day/10150195205068920
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:39:45 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately
worried. I figure it warrants a
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400
Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
the LSN.
Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for free.
LSN is beeing actively implemented in
On 6/5/2011 20:44, John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400
Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
On 6/5/2011 20:44, John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400
Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move
I know quite a few folks are planning some sort of monitoring/measurement
activity related with IPv6 day. If there is any chance you might be able to
make this information(raw or derived data) available to the broader network
research community please let me know. Merit and the University of
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network
beeing rather old-fashioned, every DSL (and residential fiber) line
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:48:56 EDT, Bryan Fields said:
On 6/5/2011 20:44, John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400 Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net
wrote:
This is the same organization that says there is no basic human right to
keep
and bear arms. They have no standing to
In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark
On Jun 5, 2011 7:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron
Byrne
writes:
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=
0...@mail.gmail.com
In message
BANLkTik+qgTPXOwaSsHseYQbP0MBJw25Tb2bO6b3kyrKvhGj=q...@mail.gmail.com, =
?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes:
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried
to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN.
On 6/5/2011 8:11 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately
worried. I
On 6/5/2011 8:44 PM, John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400
Bryan Fieldsbr...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational
On 6/5/2011 10:11 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:48:56 EDT, Bryan Fields said:
On 6/5/2011 20:44, John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400 Bryan Fieldsbr...@bryanfields.net wrote:
This is the same organization that says there is no basic human right to
On 05/06/11 9:59 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
On 6/5/2011 8:11 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every
On 05/06/11 5:18 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:39:45 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
The title is misleading, as this is more about denying access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was
24 matches
Mail list logo
