May 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Reward
by Sharif Torpis 28 May '97

28 May '97

...someone was asking for more specifics on recent agis network attack...i don't think there is more information or at least not public information...see http://www.agis.net/reward.htm for the latest... -- Sharif Torpis (storpis(a)pbi.net) Network Engineering Pacific Bell Internet PGP Key at http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html

1 0

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by jmbrown＠ihighway.net 28 May '97

28 May '97

Yes that would be a cinical view :) One thing that I like is it requires the sender to use their REAL address, and flag the message as a SPAM. It would also need to cover the unauthorized use of MY mail relay server. Thus the SPAMMER would have to use there server and NOT bounce off of me. To do so would be considered a theft of service. jmbrown >Seems to me it's even worse than this. Seems to me that the bill, while >well intentioned, could be used by Spammers to say "See, it's OK to SPAM, >it says so here. We put the word advertisement on the subject line. See, >if people don't want to see it, the law says their ISP filters it. We're >doing exactly what the law says we should. It condones SPAM." > >Or did I miss something about this law? > >Owen > >

3 2

Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by John R Levine 28 May '97

28 May '97

No, this isn't a rant about spam. It's about a misguided anti-spam bill that puts potentially onerous rules on every ISP in the country. Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska filed a bill earlier this week that's intended to solve the spam problem. His intentions are clearly good, and based on his press release, he seems to understand many of the issues, but his bill is very unfortunate. It says: * Commercial e-mail must be tagged with "advertisement" * All ISPs must provide tag filtering on inbound mail * Commercial e-mail must provide a real return address, and accept remove requests. They have 48 hours to act on a remove request. * The FTC can discipline misbehaving ISPs. * Various penalties for unsigned ads, for ISPs that don't provide filtering, for spammers who continue to send ads after receiving a remove. There's a press release and a full copy of the bill on the senator's web site at http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/press/EMail052197.html Seems to me that if this were enacted into law, it'd be bad news for ISPs, since the volume of spam would increase (since it'd be officially legal) and ISPs would have to provide filtering on mountains of inbound spam. And, of course, opt-out lists don't work. There's a separate bill proposed by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey which extends the junk fax ban to unsolicited commercial e-mail and says nothing about ISPs. The ISP/C endorses the Smith bill in principle. People say they've been talking to Murkowski, he's amenable to argument and will probably revise his bill next week. If you think this bill would affect your business (he's a pro-business conservative Republican, after all), it's worth a phone call. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47

9 12

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 28 May '97

28 May '97

On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 12:15 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] wrote: @ Karl and Eugene, @ @ While I personally find this *tremendously* amusing, almost as funny @ as the Flemmaster trying to spin damage control on nanog, I'm just @ guessing but I suspect few people on newdom(a)ar.com are particularly @ interested in participating in your little spat. However, it is @ perhaps instructive on how the "alternative DNS effort" or whatever @ you all are calling yourselves these days can be expected to @ operate... @ @ Have a nice day, @ -drc David, Some folks from Japan once suggested that Japan have their own Root Name Server Confederation. Has any more progress been made on Root Name Server Confederations in the Asia/Pacific region ? While it might be true that North America has its share of Root Name Server Confederations, I am not sure there can be too many. With more Root Name Server Confederations we are able to learn more about the technical, human and market dynamics. Hopefully this research will be useful in other parts of the world. If I recall, you once said that the Asia/Pacific region would likely result in each country wanting their own confederation. Has any progress been made on which countries would be the most likely candidates ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

2 1

RE: DNS Evolution Alert
by Jim Fleming 27 May '97

27 May '97

On Tuesday, May 27, 1997 5:36 PM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: @ > Since this research is not funded by the U.S. Government's @ > National Science Foundation (NSF) it may not be considered @ > by some to be valid or of any value. No matter where you @ > stand on that issue, you should at least know that it @ > exists. @ @ The NSF has funded a lot of good network research. However, you @ might want to look at some of the research funded by some other @ organizations as well. Perhaps, DARPA. Hint: think "ARPANET." @ Yes, the U.S. Government has funded its share of "network research". Some people have learned to "steer" (manipulate?) the U.S. Government agencies in a direction that suits their personal and corporate needs. This ensures their success because most people follow the U.S. Government's lead no matter how good or bad the technology or decision making. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

San Diego ISP Hack
by rbenn＠clark.net 27 May '97

27 May '97

Anybody know who the "unidentified" San Diego ISP is that got hacked by a 15-year-old last week? Randy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Randall S. Benn http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn Internetworking Consultant rbenn(a)clark.net CCIE #1637 Reston, VA USA -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: the original thirteen NSFNET regionals
by Frank Sayre 27 May '97

27 May '97

At 05:57 PM 5/27/97 -0700, Kent W. England wrote: > [...] > THEnet Texas U Texas still independent Still operated by the University of Texas. A relic ... but still healthy. -- Frank Sayre +1 (512) 471-2488 +1 (512) 471-2449 fax -- Office of Telecommunication Services - THEnet University of Texas System -- Academic Computing and IT Services University of Texas at Austin -- 304 East 24th Street Service Building 319 Austin, Tx 78705

1 0

[off-topic] old NSFNET regionals?
by Tung-Hui Hu 27 May '97

27 May '97

Sorry for the off-topic post. BTW, many thanks for the responses on a San Diego interexchange point. To summarize: CRL has a local access point that does FR and ATM up to DS3 speeds, and PCH is building one "in the next 8 weeks or so". Does anyone remember the NSF-sponsored regional networks? Can you fix this table--this is off the top of my head so I am missing a few networks. Name Region NOC was or is at Now SURAnet Southeast US Univ MD BBN SER NEARnet Northeast US MIT? BBN NER PREPnet Pennsylvania PSC merged w/ CICnet BARRnet Bay Area Stanford? Berkeley? BBN WR CERFnet? South Calif SDSC TCG CICnet Midwest ? merged w/ PREPnet Merit Michigan U Mich JvNCnet Middle states Princeton bought by verio NYSERnet New York ? THEnet Texas U Texas Thanks, -Tung-Hui Hu hhui(a)arcfour.com

5 4

Re: [off-topic] old NSFNET regionals?
by sob＠academ.com 27 May '97

27 May '97

The original NSF network in Texas was SESQUINET, operated by Rice U. THEnet was recognized as a regional a little later and SESQUINET and THEnet operated their infrastructure together for many years. SESQUINET is still operated by Rice. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

RE: [off-topic] old NSFNET regionals?
by James Saker 27 May '97

27 May '97

Here's one to add: MIDNET, now Global Internet (gi.net) Serviced central US. James R. Saker Jr. Intellitek Inc. President, Network Media Division voice: 402.333.6233 jsaker(a)intellitek.com fax: 402.333.6432 http://intellitek.com

1 0