May 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 27 May '01

27 May '01

I fight FUD almost every day. The reason FUD succeeds is because people who know better are too lazy to fight it. Sure, it seems easier at the time, but in the long run, it just makes all of our lives harder. If you give a mouse a cookie, it will come back for a glass of milk. Owen > One of my clients, a largish dot-com, tried this ... resounding lack of > success. The end-user community did NOT like it when an email arrived with > links. They were too afraid that the link might point to a virus, among > other things (yeah, I know, but YOU try fighting FUD for a while). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net] > > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:57 AM > > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > > Subject: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC*** > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > Section 7.3.3 of RFC1341 addresses the external storage, > > expiry, et cetera > > issues. Not perfect, but a good first pass... and almost ten > > years old, > > too. > > > > ((( Thanks to Valdis for pointing this out! ))) > > > > We could probably kludge FTP as an interim measure: > > > > * MTA intercepts attachments, and spools them separately. > > > > * "access-type: ftp" with, e.g., username "msg12345recipient67890" and > > password "mi93et490" and "expiration: Mon, 28 May 2001 > > 00:00:00 +0000". > > The specific parameters would be generated on a per-message basis. > > > > * Mail admins can enforce quotas. Nothing new. The > > arguments in favor of > > electronic transfer are on the grounds of timely communication. One > > could argue that somebody not checking mail for a week > > doesn't deserve > > to receive their attachment without a second > > "transmission". The proxy > > MTA could insert a human-readable expiration notice or > > whatever other > > user-friendly prompting is deemed to be a good idea. > > > > * We could also forget the MIME method, and put in a > > human-readable link > > to get the attachment, a la electronic greeting cards. > > This would allow > > immediate use of non-registered access-type methods. > > > > Eventually, I'd like to see this done via HTTP/1.1 using chunked > > transfers. However, no current MUAs will support a non-existant HTTP > > method or any X-Experimental methods. For something that would work > > *right now*, I think that RTF RFC and going from there is the > > right way... > > > > Does anybody know what MUAs follow the RFC for external > > message content? > > A little smtpd and ftpd hacking could yield something workable PDQ. > > > > > > Eddy > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > > > > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. > > EverQuick Internet Division > > > > Phone: (316) 794-8922 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) > > From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> > > To: blacklist(a)brics.com > > Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. > > > > These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting > > spambots. Do NOT > > send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked. > > > > > >

1 0

Acceptable limits of latency
by Sean Donelan 27 May '01

27 May '01

Gamers are very away of network latency, and can produce fairly decent reports describing what is important to them. Here is a nice report I saw on slashdot about the limits of acceptable latency for Quake gamers. http://members.home.net/garmitage/things/quake3-latency-051701.html

4 3

Anti-spoofing: is anyone doing it?
by Hank Nussbacher 27 May '01

27 May '01

I have recently been researching anti-spoofing for two ISPs and have an operational question or two. We have found that about 5% of sites are connected to 2 ISPs but do not use BGP. They use two different sets of IP addresses and point default to one of the two ISPs. The return traffic will of course go to them via one of the two ISPs, but if you have anti-spoofing filters set up or try to set it up now, you will break their outgoing traffic. Reasons to allow it: 1) Here we have multihomed customers, who are not eating up ASN space and are not asking for PI space and are happy the way they are working. By stopping them, we will force this 5% to ask for ASNs and PI space. So for the general well-being of the Internet - why not just let them be. 2) Anti-spoofing is set up to stop attacks from unknown IPs (RFC1918) or from an IP that doesn't belong to you. In this case, the IP can be traced back to the user (via ISP #2). 3) If you block it, the customer will leave and go to another ISP that does not block these IP addresses. Reasons to not allow it: 1) If ISP #1 has blocked the customer due to being an open mail relay (example), and then that customer just sends the traffic out via ISP #2 (using ISP #1 IPs), they have circumvented the filter and blame will be placed on ISP #1 for not stopping an open email relay (this has actually happened once before). 2) I should not be announcing traffic for IPs that I am not announcing routing updates. I am curious if others have found this 5% occurence and I am curious why no one else has raised this issue before. Could it be that almost no one is running uRPF and/or anti-spoofing filters? Thanks, Hank

3 2

Re: network policy (was Re: Stealth Blocking)
by Paul Vixie 26 May '01

26 May '01

following up my own post: > If the contract between the network owner and her customers does not allow > this type of policy-level traffic rejection, then she may have to stop. At > best this would be a matter for an arbitrator or civil court to determine. > It's certainly not something that third parties, including third parties > whose traffic is being rejected, to have any say in. > > Many restaurants have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign out front. > Perhaps they lose the business of shirtless and/or shoeless persons. But > it's their business to lose. Outsider busybodies have no right to override > the expressed wishes of business owners. i invite debate, preferrably in private but i'll let challengers choose the forum. i've received absolutely no feedback on the above post, which either means that it's too correct to argue with, or too incorrect to bother with. if you think it's the latter, i'd like to hear from you, privately or not.

1 0

RE: EMAIL != FTP
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

> From: David Lesher [mailto:wb8foz@nrk.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 6:56 AM > A) A friend got bit badly by the "anything I can attach I will" > syndrome. He was in the UK, and the usual USG local POP (from PSI) > was FUBAR. > > So he called back to DC to get urgent mail. Some MITRE genius > had attacked a 10+meg PowerPointless file to his message to 100+ > folks, including Friend. Friend err (rather you & I) paid a VERY > large phone bill for that braindeadness. So, why were they dialing international when ATT WorldNet is closer/cheaper? Could it be because they'd have had to have opened the server for relaying, from ATT, in order to do that? The anti-openrelay crowd raised your friend's cost there by $4.90 per minute +VAT, by FORCING them to use international dialup instead. They could have also used ATT and punched a tunnel through to their host (still have to allow ATT dial port access). I was in the same position (London) last year and had my servers ORBS listed, even though they were only exposed for two weeks and they never saw spam being relayed. ORBS listing is cheaper than international phone charges, VAT or no VAT. Two things I always get before going to EU; a GSM rental cell phone and an ATT WorldNet account (I bring my own telco-hacker kit). For phone calls state-side I use Dialpad or Net2Phone. MHSC has been doing some work in NZ and we regularly connect via NetMeeting. My telco bills are consistently very low. > B) I'm intrigued by the proposal for pseudo attachments. > Hmm, what's really needed? > > 1) User still points & clicks. > 2) MUA uploads attachment to its designated server. > 3) MUA attaches URL & password to message. > 4) Recipient gets mail and grabs attachment. > 5) Server knows who has gotten file, keeps track. > 6) 24 hours after last recipient has claimed it, or {say} > 1 week later, it deletes it. Replaces with "it's expired, > have it resent" for whenever. (Gee, this sounds like news > and history files...) > All this needs to work is for say Eudora and Mutt to both offer it. > Once a critical mass of sysadms deploy same, and crank down the > limit to 100K, more will. (I say Eudora because M$ will resist > anything that interoperates....) Key ingredient ... critical mass of sysadms. It will NEVER happen as long as neither Domino or Exchange are doing it. This list proves that you can't get any two sysadms to agree on the color of the sky on a sunny day. Further proof is found on the ICANN lists. > -- > 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 I still love this sig-line <g>.

2 1

Yipes!....question.
by Los, Ralph 26 May '01

26 May '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, I was approached by a sales rep. from Yipes! Communications today...and he talked a good sales speech. I am requesting information from anyone who has either directly worked with Yipes! (as a network operator) or a customer. 1. Do they really deliver the speeds they promise? 2. What do their peering points look like? (speed/partners/protocols?) 3. How responsive are they to support issues/downtime? I appreciate any feedback, please send off-list as I'm not sure if everyone wants to read info like this or not, use discression. Thanks a bunch, Ralph M. Los Asst. Vice-President, Internet Systems and Security EnvestNet Advisory Corp. rlos(a)envestnet.com (312) 827-3945 (direct) (312) 296-9003 (wireless w/voicemail) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOw0wMXM6eMaR3AeZEQIoSgCfccbeLIkOGx1CDwN9peiiHP/mrSUAn35K pSTIcMbWX9vATc0tj+xdOC4+ =jhO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: PacBell Frame Relay Outage?
by Sean Donelan 26 May '01

26 May '01

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Roy wrote: > The event made at least the radio and probably the print media. The > big uproar was because "many ATMs stopped working". I guess that > puts the Internet in its proper place in the scheme of things. I did notice the number of "subscribers" affected was below the important 30,000 reportable FCC outage level. The last report I saw was fewer than 22,000 customers affected, and I haven't seen any FCC outage report show up on the FCC web site about the PacBell problems. Wells Fargo said on average 5% of its ATM machines are out of service, and they didn't see anything out of the ordinary yesterday. 9-1-1 automatic location identification (ALI) service was also affected, although the calls themselves connected without problems.

1 0

Re: PacBell Frame Relay Outage?
by Sean Donelan 26 May '01

26 May '01

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Dan Paxton wrote: > Is anyone still experiencing FR outages in California thru PacBell/ASI?? > Statement by PacBell issued on May 26 2001 at 12:14pm: > Customers in the California area may be unable to access the internet > at this time. Our network engineering team is working hard to resolve > this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and > thank you for your patience. So I would say PacBell is still having problems (or is having new problems).

1 0

RE: Stealth Blocking
by Roeland Meyer 26 May '01

26 May '01

> From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:51 PM > > Shawn McMahon wrote: > > > > TCP rate-limiting on outbound traffic to *:25 would also > be extremely > > > effective, particularly on unclassified customer traffic, > and without the > > > heavy-handed nature of denying all dial-up traffic. > Rate-limiting doesn't > > > interfere with low-volume legitimate mail, but it really > cramps spam. > > > > It interferes heavily with transmission of large files via > email, though, > > and this *IS* a valid use of service. > > The transmission of large files is not a valid use of email. Is too... I send large documents regularly, via email. I just sent a 125 page word doc, with about 20 embedded Visio drawings and a bunch of embedded Excel spreadsheets. It was huge. Most of the recipients are on dialups with Win98. How else do you expect me to get it to them ... FTP? Most of them are NOT computer jocks.

26 56

ot, nonoperational: Mitch Halmu
by Steve Sobol 26 May '01

26 May '01

Mitch, ferchrissakes, fix your mail server. If you don't want to receive replies from me, don't reply to my messages. This is thoroughly obnoxious. Thank you; drive through. Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: > The original message was received at Sat, 26 May 2001 11:47:11 -0400 > from snoopy.nstc.com [207.166.203.200] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <mitch(a)netside.net> > (reason: 550 <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net>... This domain is banned.) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to mailhost.netside.net.: > >>> MAIL From:<sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net> SIZE=1038 > <<< 550 <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net>... This domain is banned. > 554 5.0.0 <mitch(a)netside.net>... Service unavailable > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: Wordpad File (message/delivery-status) > > Part 1.3Type: MHTML Document (message/rfc822) -- Tired of Earthlink? Get JustTheNet! Nationwide Dialup, ISDN, DSL, ATM, Frame Relay, T-1, T-3, and more. EARTHLINK AMNESTY PROGRAM: Buy a year, get two months free More info coming soon to http://JustThe.net, or e-mail me! B!ff: K3wl, w3'v3 r00t3D da N@vy... 0h CrAp, INC0M!Ng $%^NO CARRIER

2 1