- Test - lists.nanog.org

OT: Level 3 Secrets to Contact? Very OT! Please Ignore!
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

Does anyone know the secret to contacting a dark fiber salesperson at Level 3? The website directs a prospect to their toll free number 1-877-2LEVEL3 but the voicemail decision tree has some very dead limbs. It's not always easy to convey one's frustration in email. But the mugshot in this story seems to capture my general disposition: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~1765189,00.html# Just hoping to get some quick answers to easy questions so I'll be on my way to feeling like this: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/record2011.19c.gif ...but if the wait goes on much longer, I'll be left in this state: http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2001-04-16-buffett.jpg Thanks, BM PS hope the employee-owners over there have a sense of humor....their contact apparatus is costing them money...is my guess. PPS You'd be surprised how many images there are of Warren Buffet on the web. And come to think of it, why should that rich (*&%$#$ ever have a grumpy look on his face?! The man should be walking around with a smile that makes his ears itch.

1 0

AOL postmaster (new request)
by Derrick Bennett 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

I really hate doing this but after 5 days and no one at AOL's helpdesk can even tell me why our subnets are being blocked. Can someone with the Postmaster helpdesk level 2 or higher please contact me. I have a ticket, I have followed all the rules, and I am still being told that no one knows why the block is there and no one knows when I will get a phone call or an email. Yes I accept mail for postmaster and root @ServerIP. No there is nothing in either mailbox. I am not listed on any other blacklists so I am really quite confused as to why this is so difficult. Thanks, Derrick <End of List Noise>

2 1

RE: WLAN shielding
by Erik Amundson 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

I have been looking into the Cisco Aironet solution recently for a project I'm working on. They seem to have some great security features, if you want to take the time to configure it. Oh, another caveat is that you have to use Cisco's wireless adapter as well, otherwise, good ol' WEP for you! I haven't thought of the VPN idea that others have spoken of on the NANOG list yet...that's a good idea too...hmm.... - Erik -----Original Message----- From: Andy Grosser [mailto:andy@sugar.meniscus.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:02 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: WLAN shielding Apologies in advance if this may not quite be the proper list for such a question... My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for other ways to limit the propagation of signals (i.e. special shielding paint, panels or other wall coatings)? Feel free to reply off-list. Thanks! Andy --- Andy Grosser, CCNP andy at meniscus dot org ---

2 1

prefix filter generation for customers
by Phillip Vandry 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

Hi, I'm looking for input about how other people deal with this problem: We generate prefix filters for our customers from RADB using their AS or as-set. Our upstreams do the same for us. Our filters are generated with a simple WHOIS query and will pick up objects not only from RADB but from the various other IRRs that are mirrored in RADB. The problem is that it looks like at least one of our upstreams does not pick up the route objects that are in IRRs other than the one we asked them to use for us (RADB). One of our customers uses a different IRR and their routes did not get included in the filter generated by our upstream. Do we need to force all of our customers to use the same IRR as we do, or is there some way that we can support offering our customers a choice of IRRs just like our upstreams do for us? -Phil

2 1

WLAN shielding
by Andy Grosser 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Apologies in advance if this may not quite be the proper list for such a question... My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for other ways to limit the propagation of signals (i.e. special shielding paint, panels or other wall coatings)? Feel free to reply off-list. Thanks! Andy --- Andy Grosser, CCNP andy at meniscus dot org ---

10 11

SPAM from own customers
by Michel Renfer 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Hi All The topic "Spam sent over infected or malconfigured enduser pc's" will become an big issue. We saw Virus' sending Spam directly from the users pc, downloading the recipient list and the payload trough HTTP from the web. How will you deal with the problem, that one user can flood your SMTP Server with tousends of emails within 10-20 minutes? Opinions, Suggestions? thanks, michel

6 5

s.o. out there from Finland's ISPs
by frank＠try-us.de 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Hello list, Need a contact to an isp in Finland / Scandinavia. Please contact me off list. -- Best regards, Frank Kuempel mailto:frank@try-us.de If it's there and you can see it - it's REAL If it's there and you can't see it - it's TRANSPARENT If it's not there and you can see it - it's VIRTUAL If it's not there and you can't see it - it's GONE

1 1

RR Abuse contact
by sowens＠epik.net 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Could someone from Road Runner's abuse department contact 407-482-8487 or ghadlock<at>epik(dot>net please. Shane

1 0

Re: incorrect spam setups cause spool messes on forwarders
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com wrote: > Why on earth would Verizon need to do the lookup once per > incoming email? If they need to verify that a given MX > does indeed exist and is reachable and is running an > SMTP server, then why not cache that info for some Er.. they are not looking for "MX exists". If MX and A didn't exist or were bogus (pointing at rfc1918 space or the loopback IP for instance) the mail could be rejected without going through all this song and dance about SMTP callbacks. Consider a domain like (say) email.com <- that's one of ours, btw, that is extensively forged into spam. What they are trying to do is to connect back to email.com's MXs and ensure that the user <sgswretyshsdhtest(a)email.com> who is trying to send them mail really does exist, and is not just a figment of some spambot's imagination. It does tend to cut down on the amount of spam, but fails in several ways which have been discussed upthread (the most common being: the MX has an smtpd listener with no view of the userdb, like a cisco pix appliance with "smtp fixup", or a qmail smtpd instance). It is also a major headache for the operators of other mailserver clusters, especially the operators who host domains that are extensively forged into spam. SMTP verification callbacks are a major nuisance, over and above the usual flood of forged spam. And it can set off all kinds of alarms when a NOC tech finds the same address (say imail(a)verizon.net) sending out thousands of emails to a whole lot of unknown addresses on your system. Said tech went ahead and blocked that address. By the time I could investigate, Verizon was rejecting a bunch of valid mail as well ... their sender verify process was failing because our NOC tech had blocked the address they used for verification. [Beats me why they don't use something like verify(a)security.verizon.net] > reasonable time period, say an hour, to avoid disrupting > everyone else's Internet. Coupled with that caching, they They could cache information about that particular envelope sender, sure. But spammers send with extensively randomized and bogus addresses in the same spam run, so even that caching doesn't really help. > And if they are going to do something like this which > imposes a requirement on other ISPs, i.e. your MX > must point to a live SMTP server, and which impacts That it must. No argument about that. > other ISP's mail operations, i.e. we will send you An ISP whose domain's MX points to a dead or nonexistent server would notice a severe impact on their mail operations, I assure you. > 450s, then why can't they *PUBLISH* what they are > doing. NANOG seems an appropriate place for this. Glad somebody realizes this. NANOG, according to the list FAQ, is not really the place to discuss spam, particularly as spam is not an operational problem. The reason that I disagree with this line of reasoning is that spam is just as much of an operational problem as some other topics that are considered fit for discussion here (or at any rate, are regularly discussed here). Especially as most if not all spam these days has a network security angle to it (trojans, compromised machines, hijacked /16s ...) Of course, most other operators meetings have whole conference tracks and tutorials on spam... in fact nanog seems to have had at least one or two of them in the past (with Paul Vixie speaking about spam). Yes, lists like spam-l and spamtools exist (and so do several other lists, some of them semi-secret and by invitation only, even). But * Quite a few nanog people don't read those * Quite a few issues are often better discussed in the focused and clued atmosphere of nanog than in the tower of babel (aka news.admin.net-abuse.email) --srs -- srs (postmaster|suresh)(a)outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations

4 7

WLAN shielding results
by Andy Grosser 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Thanks to all who responded to my query. I suppose I should have added that the brass in my company are somewhat loathe to work a little harder at things like using SecurID tokens, firing up VPN software, etc. "I want a single login solution" is a common mantra on the top floor. OK, OK, we're working on it... <exasperated sigh> The majority of the respondents suggested software solutions - VPN tunneling, strong crypto, not broadcasting SSIDs, etc. I've been somewhat successful in relating to the higher-ups that they can either have security or convenience, and the mileage and pricing will vary. Our VPN boxes seldom hit 10% CPU utilization, even with 2000 users, so why not still use them? Thanks again, and my apologies for decreasing the S/N ratio. Andy

1 0