- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Summary: what do you use to configure devices?
by Eliot Lear 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

I asked: > I'm curious as to how you configure your routers (whatever they may be). > In particular, what tools do you use? Home grown? Rancid? Vendor provided? > > I'll summarize. Here's the summary: by hand/ssh/telnet 10 hand + rancid 5 home grown 2 Vendor provided 1 Will ask again in a few months. Probably more specific. Thanks to all who participated. Eliot

1 0

Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Brad Knowles 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

At 12:55 PM -0400 2002/08/23, Greg A. Woods wrote: > All correctly implemented SMTP mailers _MUST_ modify the envelope sender > address when forwarding a message to the target address(es) of an alias. That's a new requirement in a new RFC. How many sites are there in the world that run older MTAs that do not necessarily always implement this rule? Indeed, are there any MTAs which exist today that enforce this rule in all cases? Even if you do have an MTA which implements this rule, what if all you have is the alias, and there is no "-owner" or "owner-" address defined? So, you run a big site, with tens of millions of customers. Are you going to tell them all to "piss off" if they're subscribed to a mailing list that is not implemented according to this rule? Riiiiiiiiight. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)

1 0

FW: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?)
by Jerry Eyers 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: music-bar-admin(a)ampfea.org [mailto:music-bar-admin@ampfea.org]On > Behalf Of Joost Schuttelaar > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:13 PM > To: music-bar(a)ampfea.org > Subject: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) > > > http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819riaa.php > > Too bad it's just a small ISP. > > - Joost > > _______________________________________________ > music-bar mailing list > music-bar(a)ampfea.org > http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/music-bar >

29 43

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Brad Knowles 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

At 7:42 PM -0400 2002/08/21, Robert Blayzor wrote: >> Sorry, guy. Ain't gonna happen. > > Just like the way domain name registration and Internet numbers are > assigned today. You don't register, get unintended results. Go ahead. Set up your own Verisign for the required registration of e-mail servers. I dare you. Let's see just how fast you can put yourself out of business. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)

2 1

Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Martin Cooper 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Brad Knowles writes: > At 12:56 AM +0000 2002/08/22, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i won't glock up this already busy list with a full copy of the proposal, > but before y'all go off and invent something, here's some prior art that's > been resoundingly pooh-pooh'd by the smtp community. > > http://www.vix.com/~vixie/mailfrom.txt > > Yeah, the problem is that this breaks mailing lists, just like other > proposals. Otherwise, it would seem to be a nice concept. How does it break mailing-lists? If the list sets the envelope sender to <list-request(a)listserv.domain.com> creating a MAIL-FROM shouldn't be a problem. The only problem I can see is what to do about bounces (i.e. with a null envelope sender) - guess you could use header From instead maybe. Martin

2 1

How does this help?
by blitz 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

I read and re-read the decision of the ISP that was going to block RIAA access and setup a honeypot. Wouldn't legitimate users as well find themselves in that honeypot, and thus be blocked, achieving what the RIAA wanted in the first place, to disrupt GNUtella services? Somehow this doesn't make sense to me. Color me dumb. Marc Blitz Macronet.net

3 2

Re: introducer trust model, Was: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?)
by Steven M. Bellovin 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

In message <20020822142836.A92148(a)mail.webmonster.de>, "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wr ites: > > > >i am not an expert in this field, but i think that a generic standard >for this kind of trust model is long overdue, the only application >nowadays out there in the wild using it being pgp's model of the web of >trust.=20 > I doubt that it would work well -- one "mole" would suffice for many large penetrations. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

2 1

Major Labels v. Backbones
by John Ferriby 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

A number of major music labels have joined forces and are seeking relief from backbone providers, see: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=582&e=2&cid=582&u=/nm/200 20816/wr_nm/media_copyright_dc_4 It sounds like the labels are alleging that the providers are, in some way, contributing infringers. If there are any legal eagles here, can a Common Carrier be a contributing infringer? Could a trucking firm be labeled a contributing infringer if it carries goods that violate patent/copyright law? Would Verizon/SBC/Qwest et al be construed this way if the service delivered copyrighted material over the voice network unencoded? -- John Ferriby - PGP Key: www.ferriby.com/pgpkey

23 28

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Mark Segal 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

> It's almost to the point to where mail servers need their own > "registrar", sort of the way domains are tracked now, track > mail servers. Give mail server admins the option to accept > mail from registered mail servers only or from any mail > server. Of course there would need to be a ramp up period, > like six months to a year, to make sure all of your mail > servers are registered. And of course one should only be > able to register mail servers if the IP space is actually > SWIP to them. If the IP space is NOT SWIP, it would need to > be registered by the customer ISP or via owners rwhois > server. Just my $.02; for what it's worth.... Really good idea (no sarcasm, I actually like it).. But what stops spammers from registering their mail server?..Ie.. 1) Get a dsl account 2) Ips get swipped to you 3) Register the server 4) SPAM 5) Apologize, get a second chance 6) get booted off 7) Call the next ISP with a zero install 8) Rinse and repeat. Regards, Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data Services Futureway Communications Inc. Tel: (905)326-1570

20 61

Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

In message <HGEEKCPKMCLEIOHFGKCNOEPLCBAA.nigel(a)forever-networks.com>, "Nigel Cl arke" writes: > >Start now, do whatever it takes. > >Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where >it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? > I assume you're talking about the Berman bill -- for the full text, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107Pidyhy:: (it's not law yet). Note in particular that although they have to notify the Attorney-General of the technologies they intend to use, the bill doesn't say anything about IP addresses. Note also that the technology list is confidential. Actually, the entire text is pretty appalling -- but read it for yourself. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

4 3