- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: OT: Interesting email I received
by Rowland, Alan D 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

Not to mention: Qwest Communications (NETBLK-NET-QWEST-BLKS-4) NET-QWEST-BLKS-4 65.112.0.0 - 65.121.255.255 -Al -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Lark [mailto:dlark@elmresources.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:56 PM To: 'mike harrison'; 'Dan Hollis' Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: OT: Interesting email I received Oh they're definitely off of qwest: Registrant: CnS Systems, Inc. (NATIONALISP11-DOM) 4304 Hunter Oaks Dr. High Point, NC 27265 US Domain Name: NATIONAL-ISP.ORG Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: CnS Systems, Inc. (UOLABCFHYO) ecotton(a)cnssystems.com CnS Systems, Inc. 4304 Hunter Oaks Dr. High Point, NC 27265 US 3368698508 Technical Contact: VeriSign, Inc. (HOST-ORG) namehost(a)WORLDNIC.NET VeriSign, Inc. 21355 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166 US 1-888-642-9675 fax: Record last updated on 03-Jan-2002. Record expires on 20-Dec-2003. Record created on 20-Dec-2001. Database last updated on 1-Feb-2002 01:31:00 EST. Domain servers in listed order: DCA-ANS-01.INET.QWEST.NET 205.171.9.242 SVL-ANS-01.INET.QWEST.NET 205.171.14.195 Now will qwest "do the right thing" seeing as how blatant this is? -dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of mike harrison Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:47 PM To: Dan Hollis Cc: Daniel Lark; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: OT: Interesting email I received > > National ISP Co. is a business class bulk email friendly ISP. > Tracing the route to NATIONAL-ISP.ORG (65.114.61.35) > [...] > 15 atl-edge-14.inet.qwest.net (205.171.21.182) [AS 209] 132 msec 100 msec 144 msec > 16 208.47.124.58 [AS 209] 388 msec 852 msec 608 msec > 17 NATIONAL-ISP.ORG (65.114.61.35) [AS 209] 524 msec 584 msec 268 msec > > Well, qwest *is* bulk-friendly... We've been tracking spam closely as the geeks in the back room are homebrewing 'SpamShredder'.. and Andrew (the head anti-spam programmer) told me today that just over 50% of what we are seeing is coming from Qwest controlled IP's, mostly low end resell dial-ups.

2 1

RE: OT: Interesting email I received
by Joe Blanchard 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

Opps, just looked at that web addy. Nevermind. Thank goodness its Friday.. -Joe > ---------- > From: Joe Blanchard > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:15 PM > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: RE: OT: Interesting email I received > > > I'm wondering if the originator of the email was "trying" to > set QWest/National up by sending this email out, that > is, someone simply spammed it in hopes National-isp got > the boot/warning from their peer for violating TOS. > > Do the headers indicate its origin? > > Just my 2¢s > -Joe > > ---------- > From: Daniel Lark[SMTP:dlark@elmresources.com] > Reply To: dlark(a)elmresources.com > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:56 PM > To: 'mike harrison'; 'Dan Hollis' > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: OT: Interesting email I received > > > Oh they're definitely off of qwest: > > Registrant: > CnS Systems, Inc. (NATIONALISP11-DOM) > 4304 Hunter Oaks Dr. > High Point, NC 27265 > US > > Domain Name: NATIONAL-ISP.ORG > > >

1 0

Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
by Matt Barrette 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

To add more fuel to the fire, how does one combat the issue of "stolen" IP addresses. Stolen IP's are worse to me than a user doing NAT. Slightly intuitive users could figure out that their IP is one of a /24 and just statically assign one to their other machine with out paying for it, and worse take somebodies IP and make that user non-functional. I know the cable modem service where I live will allow this type of activity. At 01:37 PM 1/31/2002 -0800, Keith Woodworth wrote: > > > >On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Dan Hollis wrote: > >|+On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Marc Pierrat wrote: >|+> It's not very enforceable, so I'd be very surprised to see much money >|+> spent on this witch hunt. >|+ >|+At least one provider has a fully staffed full time "anti-nat" divison >|+now. But will they burn more cash in the nat witch-hunt than they save? >|+ >|+I also wonder about false positives. Watch the lawsuits fly as they >|+mistakenly cutoff non-nat customers. > >From a technical standpoint how does one detect NAT users over the >network? > >Keith > > ____ Matt Barrette NetINS Network Technician Email: mattbar(a)netins.net www.netins.net www.netins.com PH: 888-NETINS1

2 1

RE: Not operational, but may well be: New M$ "Chief Security Stra tegist"
by Rowland, Alan D 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

"He is scheduled to start work at Microsoft on the first of April." Um, no, that would be to easy a cheap shot. Never mind. ;) -Al Just my 2¢, feel free to use your delete key. -----Original Message----- From: David Lesher [mailto:wb8foz@nrk.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:30 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Not operational, but may well be: New M$ "Chief Security Strategist" http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Jan02/01-31CharneyPR.asp Microsoft Names Scott Charney as Chief Security Strategist PricewaterhouseCoopers Principal to Lead Microsoft Security Efforts REDMOND, Wash. -- Jan. 31, 2002 --Microsoft Corp. today announced that Scott Charney, a principal for PricewaterhouseCoopers' Cybercrime Prevention and Response Practice, has agreed to join Microsoft as chief security strategist. Charney will focus on developing strategies to enhance the security of Microsoft® products, services and infrastructures as part of the Trustworthy Computing initiative. He is scheduled to start work at Microsoft on the first of April. ...... Scott is better known for his DoJ time. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Attn:AT&T Postmaster
by Irwin Lazar 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

If there is an AT&T postmaster responsible for "attrh3i.attrh.att.com" or "wsscan.att.com" out there, please respond to me off-list. Your server is sending the below error message to mpls-ops(a)mpslrc.com <mailto:mpls-ops@mpslrc.com> , but the error message doesn't identify the offending account so short of removing all AT&T accounts, I'm at a loss as to how to fix it. I've sent numerous messages to postmaster(a)att.com <mailto:postmaster@att.com> have not received a response. X-POP3-Rcpt: mplsrc12(a)mplsrc.com Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:56:01 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: host.secure4-hosting.net: mplsrc12 set sender to mpls-ops-request(a)mplsrc.com using -f X-From_: Fri Feb 1 12:55:57 2002 Old-Date: Fri, Feb 1 2002 12:54:45 EST From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)attrh3i.attrh.att.com To: mpls-ops-request(a)mplsrc.com Subject: Message status notification X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: mpls-ops-request The mail routing agent encountered the following class of error: No entries found in directory for query ----- Original Message Text Follows ----- Received: from wsscan.att.com (135.71.63.10) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (5.5.029) id 3C06950500ECC026; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:54:43 -0500 Received: by wsscan.att.com; id MAA04196; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from almsi2.proxy.att.com(192.168.108.71) by cyrus0.wsscan.att.com via csmap (V4.1) id srcAAAoCaqmi; Fri, 1 Feb 02 12:55:33 -0500 Received: from host.secure4-hosting.net ([209.239.41.31]) by almsi2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSI-3.0) with ESMTP id g11HtXV24334; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mplsrc12@localhost) by host.secure4-hosting.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g11HtXm19174; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:33 -0500 Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:33 -0500

1 0

will the owner of...
by Eric A. Hall 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg is transmitting copies of messages to mailboxes listed in the To header field of those messages. Will its owner please fix it. The two copies of each reply that I already get are plenty. Thanks. Return-Path: <eddy+public+spam(a)noc.everquick.net> Received: from [165.21.74.71] (HELO tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg) by goose.ehsco.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.2) with ESMTP id 51460 for ehall(a)ehsco.com; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:48:15 -0600 Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:43:05 +0800 Received: from mx11.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.121]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:50:07 +0800 Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by mx11.singnet.com.sg (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g0VMo8OX010017; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:50:09 +0800 Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 21E0F91309; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B6A8391308; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6119130B for <nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4D80E5DE0F; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: nanog(a)merit.edu Received: from a.mx.everquick.net (a.mx.everquick.net [216.89.137.3]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83EB5DD91 for <nanog(a)merit.edu>; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (eddy@localhost) by a.mx.everquick.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g0VMi3n16093; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:44:03 GMT -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

1 0

Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
by Andrew Odlyzko 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

The main reason Comcast and other carriers are trying to keep NAT out is almost surely in order to price discirminate. If you are using NAT, you are probably a sophisticated (and therefore presumably moderately affluent) user who can afford the extra charge. Further, if you are using NAT, you probably value your connection more than the typical residential user, and so should be willing to pay more. This is the same argument that led phone companies to charge extra for additional phones in the past. (And note that this policy has not disappeared from the scene. The charge for a second voice line for the home is higher than for the first, even though the marginal cost of providing that service is much lower.) It is the same argument that led snail mail services up through the first half of the 19th century to charge for letters by the sheet (with postal clerks sitting in darkened rooms, holding letters up against candle light to ensure there were no additional sheets hidden inside), and also to charge according to distance, even when the marginal costs of long haul transport were negligible. That such practices surface constantly is no accident. There are good social policy arguments for price discirmination. On the other hand, those arguments conflict with the general preference people have for simple pricing (as evidenced by the comments on this list). If you are interested in pursuing this further, I have a paper on this subject, "Internet pricing and the history of communications," which appeared last year in "Computer Networks," and is available at < http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf> Andrew Odlyzko

1 0

Not operational, but may well be: New M$ "Chief Security Strategist"
by David Lesher 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Jan02/01-31CharneyPR.asp Microsoft Names Scott Charney as Chief Security Strategist PricewaterhouseCoopers Principal to Lead Microsoft Security Efforts REDMOND, Wash. -- Jan. 31, 2002 --Microsoft Corp. today announced that Scott Charney, a principal for PricewaterhouseCoopers' Cybercrime Prevention and Response Practice, has agreed to join Microsoft as chief security strategist. Charney will focus on developing strategies to enhance the security of Microsoft® products, services and infrastructures as part of the Trustworthy Computing initiative. He is scheduled to start work at Microsoft on the first of April. ...... Scott is better known for his DoJ time. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

NAT Router for other purposes
by Cutler, James R 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

I use a Linksys BEFSR41B to connect both my PC and my Linksys printer server together while I am using my Internet connection. This way I can use the Internet and any of the three printers supported transparently with nothing but selecting which printer I want to use. And, since I use a company laptop as my PC, the hardware changes often. The Linksys insulates these changes from my ISP connection. Oh, in addition, I never see DOS attacks against my PC or my printer server, since the Linksys does not respond to connection attempts. Does this mean that I am an evil person, trying to cheat the ISP? Should I be charged $5/month to use my printers which cannot be accessed from the ISP connection? I think not, and, not. - James R. Cutler, EDS 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098 248 265 7514 (8-3650

2 1

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: I apologize for this not getting out yesterday, VeriSign Global Registry Services has changed the IP address for i.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set for com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.42.93.30 H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.54.112.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.26.92.30 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.43.172.30 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.33.14.30 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 213.177.194.5 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.12.94.30 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 202.153.114.101 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the new and old i.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems VeriSign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0