- Test - lists.nanog.org

OT: MTA. (Was) RE: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT a ttachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
by Rowland, Alan D 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Folk, This is like the insurance industry basing rates on auto make/model. While that is one factor, the much more important factor is the driver. It's the user, not the MTA, that 'spreads' viri. This problem is not limited to AOL/MSNites. And if techies are so much better why are there compromised IIS, Apache, FTP, etc. machines around months and often years after fix releases? To paraphrase someone you may be familiar with, Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept. I'm much more interested in the message than the medium. :) -Al Rowland Just my 2¢, feel free to use your delete key." -----Original Message----- From: Matthew S. Hallacy [mailto:poptix@techmonkeys.org] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:32 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:36:43PM -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: [snip] > The breakdown: > > Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) > Mozilla 11.41% > Eudora 10.86% > ELM 6.63% > exmh 5.25% > Web Mail 5.20% > Mutt 4.70% > New MH 3.64% > VM 2.36% > Mulberry 1.90% > Gnus 1.27% > MH 0.96% > [snip] > --msa Close, but no banana for you: 26.1534 percent, Pine 20.2465 percent, Microsoft Total (Outlook, Outlook Express, Exchange, etc) 15.5250 percent, Mutt 7.7120 percent, Microsoft Outlook 7.6985 percent, Internet Mail Service (Exchange) 5.7049 percent, Eudora 5.2738 percent, Mozilla (Netscape) 4.7013 percent, Microsoft Outlook Express 3.6102 percent, Unknown (536 messages were not identifiable) 3.2734 percent, Elm 2.1823 percent, exmh 1.6232 percent, Web Mail 1.4144 percent, Gnus/Emacs 1.2326 percent, Mulberry 0.9160 percent, VM 0.7139 percent, Yahoo! 0.4715 percent, Hotmail 0.3839 percent, Lotus Notes 0.3166 percent, The Bat! 0.3031 percent, KMail 0.2896 percent, Apple Mail 0.2694 percent, Pocomail 0.2694 percent, MH 0.2627 percent, Evolution 0.2088 percent, DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 0.2021 percent, Mahogany 0.1414 percent, Squirrel Mail 0.1414 percent, CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer 0.1347 percent, mh-e 0.1145 percent, IMail 0.1078 percent, Sylpheed 0.1010 percent, Microsoft-Entourage 0.1010 percent, Mew version x.xx on Emacs 0.0943 percent, dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 0.0741 percent, Tellurian WebMail 0.0674 percent, tin 0.0674 percent, Forte Agent 0.0539 percent, My Own Email 0.0471 percent, ZMail 0.0471 percent, Mail User's Shell 0.0404 percent, MailRoom For Internet Mail 0.0269 percent, stuphead ver. 0.5.3 (Wiskas) 0.0269 percent, MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.117) 0.0202 percent, your-mom-encapsulated-in-smtp 0.0202 percent, Vivian Mail 0.0202 percent, PostOffice 0.0202 percent, Mirapoint Webmail Direct 0.0202 percent, Becky! 0.0135 percent, Excite Inbox 0.0135 percent, /bin/bash 0.0135 percent, AeroMail 0.0067 percent, XFMail 0.0067 percent, WorldClient Standard 0.0067 percent, TWIG 0.0067 percent, The Rodent, go figure. 0.0067 percent, TBBS/TIGER v1.0/PRIMP 1.56p 0.0067 percent, slrn 0.0067 percent, Opera 0.0067 percent, emacs 20.5.1 (via feedmail 8 I) 0.0067 percent, Calypso Total messages: 14847 This resulted from checking X-Mailer, User-Agent, and Message-ID as a last resort (yahoo, hotmail, pine..), timespan is from Feb 2001 to now. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203

1 0

3Com/USR Hyper Chassis docs req
by Avleen Vig 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Does anyone know where I can find documentation on the 3Com/USRobotics Total Control Hyper Chassis (NAS gear) ? 3com.com and usr.com seem less than helpful, aiming mostly at home users nowadays. Specifically I'm trying to find out how to enable ANI polling and / or logging. Any advice appreciated. -- Avleen Vig Work Time: Unix Systems Administrator Play Time: Network Security Officer Smurf Amplifier Finding Executive: http://www.ircnetops.org/smurf

3 2

RE: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads
by Kris Foster 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

You're thinking of: Carrier-scale IP networks: designing and operating Internet networks Edited by Peter Willis, ISBN 0 85296 982 1, The Institute of Electrical Engineers, London Kris > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin J. Levy [mailto:mahtin@mahtin.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:54 PM > To: Sean Donelan; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads > > > > Sean, > > My vote goes for... > > How to build an Internet Service Company > From A to Z... > All you need to know to plan, build and market an Internet > service company. > Tips and tricks from the inside. > > Charles H. Burke > July '96 > ISBN: 0-935563-02-4 > > And I quote... > > > Coffee Maker - Coffee is an necessary as HTML to the aspiring ISP. > > ... > > I highly recommend the Bunn-Omatic corporation for excellent high > > performance coffee makers. > > ... > > It's a classic! > > As for driving in the UK and US... I have explained the value > of roundabouts to many, many Americans and they still don't > get it. Being British, but living in the US... I just don't > get why they are not used here. > > You will have to put up with the face that Bell-heads and > Net-heads just doing things differently and not understanding > why the other side prefers an opposite method! > > Martin > > ---------------- > At 03:09 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: > > > >Has anyone written the equivalent of the old Bell Systems > Notes on the > >Network for the Internet? A couple of books come close, > Hueston's ISP > >Survival Guide and Cisco's ISP Essentials. But there doesn't seem to > >be anything that helps Bell heads understand what switching, routing > >or signaling means on the Internet. There are a lot of > words which are > >spelled alike, but mean very different things in the Bell > world and the > >Internet world. > > > >I've been thinking of it like driving in England or the USA. > We drive > >on different sides of the road. Its safe until you get someone who > >doesn't know the rules of the road driving on the other side of the > >Atlantic. So how do you explain the rules of the Internet > road to someone > >used to driving on the telephone system? > >

2 1

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
by John Palmer 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold(a)nipper.de> To: "John Palmer" <nanog(a)adns.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message > John, > > use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know > ... > > Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express - > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Palmer" <nanog(a)adns.net> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM > Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its > annoying and no one can see your message > > > > > > I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending > > these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. > > > > This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. > > > > The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have > > names that start with ATT.... > > > > This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because > > opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings > > read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT > > attachments. > > > > (flame off) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk(a)titania.net> > > Cc: <nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM > > Subject: Billing Notice > > > > > > > >

15 14

RE: CA Power
by Joseph Barnhart 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Funny thing about rioters is they usually destroy their own neighborhoods...go figure. --jb > Doug Barton: > [deletia] > Reporter: So, how many generators do you have at this plant? > Operator: 3 > R: How many do you have operating today? > O: Just one. > R: REALLY? But we had rolling blackouts all through San Diego County > today, why aren't you operating all 3 generators? > O: Because Cal-ISO told me to turn off #2, and not to turn #3 > on at all. > [deletia] > Doug Let's assume this is true (not arguing it isn't). Why don't accusations like this trigger the media beast's radar? It might be a needed diversion from the impending L.A. riots. -- blake

5 7

Re: Notes on the Internet for Bell Heads
by blitz 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

>Add into the mix the government is desprately seeking ways to >make the Internet "secure." No, "control the internet"...security only applies to THEM....and their "big brother' intents... >So many vendors are trying their darndest to >find a problem so they can sell a solution, even if that means creating >the problem in the first place. Hegelian principal in its essence....

1 0

Re: CA Power
by Martin Hannigan 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

At 03:03 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote: >Yo Martin! > >If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert >yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled >"available resources" today If demand played out as expected there >would have been big trouble in CA today. A lot of data surrounding the Enron collapse suggests that power traders artificially manipulated CA's power market, and also suggests that a lot of the previous summers warnings of power problems were also artificially created. All over the country, building of "extra" capacity has slowed. Some due to new sources that came online, some due to the fact that a decrease in power was realized as a result of the falloff in the economy. Could it be that CA is experiencing a normal surge in power utilization and the warning is part of a normal cycle? Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

2 1

CA Power
by Richard A Steenbergen 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan... http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html Is it time for a rolling blackout again? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

8 7

Question regarding web hosting ip addressing
by Martin Hannigan 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

Folks, could use some pointers. I seem to remember from experience some years ago that if you were hosting multiple domains for web hosting in a shared environment that they needed to have individual IP numbers assigned specifically to the domain, all sharing the interface, so things like AOL browser, etc. would all work properly. Am I out of date on this, or is it still common practice to assign a single ip number to a single web hosted domain i.e. hme0/1.2.3.1/www.test1.com hme0/1.2.3.2/www.test2.com ...and so on and so forth? Specifics would be helpful i.e. certain browsers, applications, etc. Thanks. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

4 3

Sprint multicast route list
by Pete Kruckenberg 11 Jul '02

11 Jul '02

I'm doing some analysis of who I might be able to reach via multicast through Sprint. Sadly, route-views multicast peering with Sprint is not working at the moment. I'd appreciate if someone could email me the output from "show ip mbgp neighbor <sprint peer> received-routes" or "show ip mbgp" from a Sprint multicast BGP session. Thanks. Pete.

3 4