February 2009 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
by Stefan Molnar 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story. ------Original Message------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: Micheal Patterson Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters.. Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson <micheal(a)spmedicalgroup.com> wrote: > > SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time > now so it would seem that they're not honoring them. > Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for low volume (corporate etc) mailservers. Feedback loops are one cure, and another cure is keeping complaint volumes down. * Do you have an unfiltered NAT gateway pointed to the same IP as your corporate MTA? * Do you have any large spam sources in close proximity to you? Like you are colo'd on a /28 and someone else has a /27 or /26 in the same /24 that's emitting tons of spam (assuming colo). Or you have your mailserver hosted on a dsl pool (even a business class dsl pool) in which case your server is an island of valid mail in a large swamp of virus traffic * Do you have a marketing department that might be slightly overactive? etc etc. srs

10 16

Peering Wars of 1998
by nancyp＠yorku.ca 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Hi, I'm rsrching the Peering Wars of 1998...anyone able to provide info wd be greatly appreciated. Nancy Paterson YorkU

2 1

Internet access using VRF aware NAT
by devang patel 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Hello, Have one question about VRF aware NAT for internet access! If we will enable the VRF aware NAT on local PE to have an internet access via central Internet PE then we will not have connectivity to any other VPN site as all local CE prefixes will be translated to the loopback IP address of the local PE. We can have route map which will match the ACL for specific CE source to specific VPN destination with deny key word and it will prevent the NAT when CE will try to communicate with other CE of same VPN or different VPN. That looks longer configuration in real world right! so is that the only way I have when I will have only one option to configure the locap PE with VRF aware NAT to gain internet access? I need to know what is the implement in real world? How service provider networks are providing internet access with MPLS VPN option? I know about customer is getting VPN connectivity on one router and service provider will give other internet connectivity link which might be terminating on same router or other router. I just want to know which is mostly used option as far as the internet access service with MPLS VPN services! thanks, Devang Patel

1 0

[ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios (fwd)
by Gadi Evron 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:01 +0100 From: security(a)mandriva.com Reply-To: xsecurity(a)mandriva.com To: bugtraq(a)securityfocus.com Subject: [ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 _______________________________________________________________________ Mandriva Linux Security Advisory MDVSA-2009:054 http://www.mandriva.com/security/ _______________________________________________________________________ Package : nagios Date : February 24, 2009 Affected: Corporate 4.0 _______________________________________________________________________ Problem Description: A vulnerability has been identified and corrected in nagios: Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Nagios allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2007-5624 and CVE-2008-1360 (CVE-2007-5803). The updated packages have been upgraded to the latest version of nagios to prevent this. _______________________________________________________________________ References: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2007-5803 _______________________________________________________________________ Updated Packages: Corporate 4.0: 2f4eff0f154fb6b5470d1cb0fad177be corporate/4.0/i586/nagios-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.i586.rpm 97dd676d23af47a198b4d7d8a4a98772 corporate/4.0/i586/nagios-devel-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.i586.rpm 19658855978419d653aa3ad103d4a202 corporate/4.0/i586/nagios-theme-default-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.i586.rpm a6f6d5a202d2261977fc45fb5f0cf239 corporate/4.0/i586/nagios-www-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.i586.rpm 810578c6a17cd25e2c4b5c08f5363111 corporate/4.0/SRPMS/nagios-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.src.rpm Corporate 4.0/X86_64: fcca43b9dfedae723b76beee215b4ae4 corporate/4.0/x86_64/nagios-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.x86_64.rpm f6051010aa536ff0943693e29a86dfea corporate/4.0/x86_64/nagios-devel-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.x86_64.rpm 485776dee99e096ce00e34a90f9b4af5 corporate/4.0/x86_64/nagios-theme-default-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.x86_64.rpm 3eecf54904721ef8ce9fb3c75a40be66 corporate/4.0/x86_64/nagios-www-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.x86_64.rpm 810578c6a17cd25e2c4b5c08f5363111 corporate/4.0/SRPMS/nagios-3.1.0-0.1.20060mlcs4.src.rpm _______________________________________________________________________ To upgrade automatically use MandrivaUpdate or urpmi. The verification of md5 checksums and GPG signatures is performed automatically for you. All packages are signed by Mandriva for security. You can obtain the GPG public key of the Mandriva Security Team by executing: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver pgp.mit.edu 0x22458A98 You can view other update advisories for Mandriva Linux at: http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories If you want to report vulnerabilities, please contact security_(at)_mandriva.com _______________________________________________________________________ Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 1024D/22458A98 2000-07-10 Mandriva Security Team <security*mandriva.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJpGCOmqjQ0CJFipgRAu5OAJ9wt+wnm65Wvz1Nq7lumj/V6yvHVwCeO+6U efZ1ppeQ7XVjLx+IIeP8XjQ= =Vi1C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 5

ethr.net contact?
by Paul Visscher 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Can someone from ethr.net please contact me off list? Thanks, --paulv

1 0

RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
by Carlos Alcantar 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

We ran into this issue where we where tagging emails with ***SPAM*** and forwarding them on which got us blocked everyone once in a while pretty annoying. Carlos -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Schick [mailto:chasjs@warp8.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:18 AM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters.. We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding email to a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded where the enduser reports it as spam not realizing the impact on their actions. In the last couple of years we have been not allowing people to forward their accounts to yahoo, aol, hotmail, etc. Too much of a headache. Chuck

1 0

Re: Yahoo and their mail filters...
by Roger Marquis 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Brian Keefer wrote: > Regarding taking automatic action based on luser feedback, that is > ridiculous in my opinion. It is that i.e., non-standard, but no more than many other things at Y! Many of their internal mailing lists, for internal use only, get more spam than actual mail. Just another example of profound extent of deferred maintenance that handicaps so much of what Yahoo does. Their new CEO knows this and is capable of addressing it. Look for changes soon, mostly to mid-level managers hired during the Semel years, managers who failed to keep their technical skills up to date. Roger Marquis

1 0

Anybody from Godaddy abuse?
by Jeremy Hanmer 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Can somebody from Godaddy contact me off-list about a malicious domain errantly listing our network as its DNS servers? Email to abuse@godaddy has gone unanswered and we're getting hit pretty hard.

1 0

slightly OT: wall mount UPS for demarc
by Peter Pauly 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

I'm looking to buy several small wall mounted UPS's to power a telco's metro ethernet switches. (Yes, they should have provided some kind of protection, but won't). The closest suitable UPS I've found is this: http://www.tripplite.com/EN/products/model.cfm?txtSeriesID=419&EID=361&txtM… Can anyone suggest a better alternative? I want something sturdy, preferably metal, that can screw to a wall and be worry free for years at a time.

2 1

RE: slightly OT: wall mount UPS for demarc
by ryan.slater＠tac.com 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

This is what we have used in the past. http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BH500NET Hope that helps. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:57:35 -0500 From: Peter Pauly <ppauly(a)gmail.com> Subject: slightly OT: wall mount UPS for demarc To: nanog(a)nanog.org Message-ID: <eefbdb720902250657x6b287593g94fc97c20c17c37c(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm looking to buy several small wall mounted UPS's to power a telco's metro ethernet switches. (Yes, they should have provided some kind of protection, but won't). The closest suitable UPS I've found is this: http://www.tripplite.com/EN/products/model.cfm?txtSeriesID=419&EID=361&t xtModelID=3640 Can anyone suggest a better alternative? I want something sturdy, preferably metal, that can screw to a wall and be worry free for years at a time.

2 1