August 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Draft of a new NANOG FAQ
by Susan Harris 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

Thanks to the help of many wonderful contributors we have a draft of an FAQ for the NANOG list: http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html I hope that many of you will want to contribute. This is truly a draft and we welcome your comments, additions, subtractions, etc. Please send mail to me privately and I'll forward it to the ever-growing group of editors.

1 0

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Robert Blayzor 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

> In my case, I did it to learn, and because I did have a small business > going as well. Learning how to run that also directly led to my > current job... helping run my ISP's mailserver (among other things). > > Besides, all you are really doing is creating another Verisign... not > something we want. No, no no no no! Not Verisign at all, please do not bash this idea with the evil doers! All the details would have to be worked out for the best interest of everyone. Don't confuse a registrar proposal with Verisign, even though they may do something in the same, IMHO Verisign needs to be assimilated. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor(a)inoc.net "Oh my God, Space Aliens!! Don't eat me, I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" -- Homer J. Simpson

1 0

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by James Smith 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Blayzor [mailto:rblayzor@inoc.net] > Subject: RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org > > > I'm not a company, I'm Joe Blow private citizen - do you > expect me to > > pay $100 just to sign up with AOL? > > If you are Joe Blow private citizen, why would you need to run a mail > server? Would you not use your ISP's, at least as a smart relay? > Because he doesn't want to. He already provides POP3/SMTP services to me under his own domain name, and why should he change his servers to permit me to send mail as if from another domain where I do have a "real" mail account? I hate the free stuff (no POP3/SMTP unless you pay), I already have my own on another domain (for which I pay), and I don't want his (because I don't want to keep changing email addresses everytime they get bought out/sold). In short, because if I have to depend on my ISP for my convenience, it won't get done, unless it's done their way. I use it for outbound only, I pop my mail from my other provider... James H. Smith II Speaking for myself...

1 0

FC: RIAA presses Verizon for name of peer-to-peer subscriber (was: Verision being sued?)
by Gregory Hicks 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:55:57 -0600 To: politech(a)politechbot.com From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: FC: RIAA presses Verizon for name of peer-to-peer subscriber X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/ http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954658.html Music body presses anti-piracy case By Declan McCullagh August 21, 2002, 6:54 AM PT ASPEN, Colo.--In what may become a new legal front in its war against online copying, the Recording Industry Association of America has asked a federal court for help in tracing an alleged peer-to-peer pirate. On Tuesday, the RIAA asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C., for an order compelling Verizon Communications to reveal the name of a customer accused of illegally trading hundreds of songs. Citing privacy concerns and potential legal liability, Verizon has refused to comply with a subpoena the RIAA sent last month. "It's not that they don't want to turn over the name," said Mitch Glazier, an RIAA senior vice president. "It's that they don't want to be liable for turning over a subscriber's name." Until now, the entertainment industry has relied on civil lawsuits aimed at corporations, not individuals, to limit widespread copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks. Now, however, the RIAA is revising its strategy and appears ready to sue individuals swapping songs over the Internet. At issue in the RIAA's request is an obscure part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that permits a copyright owner to send a subpoena ordering a "service provider" to turn over information about a subscriber. It is not necessary to file a lawsuit to take advantage of the DMCA's expedited subpoena process. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton You can have it done good, fast, or cheap -- pick any two.

2 1

QWest internet & the 1996 Telecom Act
by Andy 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

[Searching the NANOG archives, I haven't found this topic yet] Can anyone confirm either of the following: -the 1996 Telecom Act restricts baby bells from exchanging internet traffic directly to each other. -that any other baby bell besides QWest is claiming this restriction. The new QWest addition to our internet feeds is restricted to their 14 state operating region. Traffic outside of the region has to traverse qwest.net, then tamerica.net, then uswest.net before it gets out. Personally, I do not see where in the 96TA restrictions apply to internet traffic - only to long distance. It feels to me they are using this to pressure FCC/PSC leadership. QWest's [271] filing to have 4 of their 14 states join long-distance suggests their 'regional' network will be getting even smaller. --- Andy Dalrymple XMission Telecom Mgr. (8/21/02)

1 0

Re: your mail
by Nathan Stratton 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ali Jackson wrote: > Does any one else out there think smart hands at Equinix is a rip off? I > can send a package over night to the IBX for less than what it costs to > move it from the mailroom to my cage. Just curious.... Uh, yes. Equinix is a rip off in general. I got kicked out of Chicago using the side door. I was sick of the stupid man trap crap and noticed they had a door that was propped open in the back that leads outside. It was much easier to back the truck up there and go in and out. The whole thing is a joke, they spent a lot of cash to look good, but there is very little substance. ><> Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net

18 28

Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by william＠elan.net 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

SMTP AUTH is certainly part of the solution but I think this is largely for user->server communication and not as much for server<->server. If spam is security problem or not maybe a point of view, what spammers are trying to do certainly often involves security measures. But in reality I'm just looking for increased security in email communication alowing for users and servers to decided the kind of trust relationship they want to have for that particular communication with choices between several methods and ability to negotiate what would be used (like during PPP, it is negotiated what type of transmission it would be, although analogy is really very remote). In my option, currently use of email is reducing due to amount of unwanted email and due to the way protocol is setup that may not allow user to fully rely on it and to be absolutly certain it was not intercepted, it was delivered to correct recepient, etc. I think we can work to make protocol and the tools needed for user to be certain email is received, that extra unwanted email is likely be thrown out (or at least marked as less secure) and this will lead to wider use of email and to allow for email to replace some of the things conventional mail is still used for. On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Dean Anderson wrote: > What would you do that SMTP AUTH didn't? > > How would your proposal solve the issues that plagued SMTP AUTH? > > What makes you think that spam is a security problem? > > --Dean > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 william(a)elan.net wrote: > > > > > This is copy of the message sent to IETF mail list. As subject said, > > I'd like to organize IETF working group to define new additions to SMTP. > > > > ---------------- > > As everyone I'm sure have seen on the last "why is spam a problem" and > > other similar threads on ietf as well as numerous similar threads on > > other lists and boards, there is a serious need to do something to limit > > amount of unsolicited email. While the roots maybe social issue I do not > > see why we can not work on it from technical point of view. In addition > > to that during last years, I'v seen real need for new features to be > > added into SMTP, such as ones for callback, delayed transmission, delivery > > notification,secure communications, etc, etc and there are in fact > > several drafts available on some issues. As far as anti-spam mechanisms I > > do not belive we should force some particular method on everyone but > > rather built several verification features into protocol and allow server > > operators to themselve choose if they want to use it. Where the features > > were use the email would be considered more secure and users can use that > > to sort out mail (as many do already with special filters). > > > > I believe its time we start working within IETF on new version of SMTP > > that would have more features and be more secure. I'v tried to point this > > out several times before on nanog and ietf hoping that someone would take > > the initiave but as this did not happen, I'm willing to do it now. At this > > point I'm proposing creation of IETF working group that would look into > > ways to extend SMTP. I'v created website and mailing list to discuss > > charter of the proposed working group at http://www.smtpng.org > > > > Those who agree with me, please subscribe to the mailing list and lets > > work on this futher in a kind-of BOF. I'm also looking for two co-chairs > > for the working group with at least one preferablly having been chair of > > ietf group before. I'm planning on sending final draft for working group > > charter in about two weeks time and right now I'm going to be contacting > > several people who have expressed interest in working on SMTP protocol as > > well as contacting IETF area director on proceeding with this. > > > > -- > > William Leibzon > > william(a)elan.net > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
by Jeff Ogden 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

At 2:19 PM -0600 8/20/02, among other things Irwan Hadi wrote: >BTW, if small (tier 4 - 5) ISPs can be threatened by its uplink for non >compliance with the AUP (for example transmitting spam all the time), >and medium ISPs (tier 3 - 4) can also be threatened by its uplink for non >compliance with the AUP, then why tier 1 - 2 ISPs can't be threatened by >RIAAA to comply to their AUP ? One difference is that there are business relationships between all of the upstreams and their downstreams. The contracts usually require compliance with the AUPs. If someone doesn't like an AUP they don't have to do business with that ISP and can at least try to get service somewhere else. ISPs don't have business relationships with the RIAA and don't have the option to go somewhere else if the RIAA imposes its will on backbone ISPs. -Jeff Ogden Merit

2 1

Re: your mail
by Paul Vixie 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

> Speakig of paix's and locations, I know the mfn filings have held up > progress but I wondered and maybe others on this list wonder what the > status of the paix nyiix interconnection might be? until mfn finishes selling paix, there will likely be no progress on this.

1 0

an itty bitty survey...
by Eliot Lear 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

Hi all, [This may sound like a perennial question.] 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. Thanks in advance, Eliot

3 2