- Test - lists.nanog.org

Postmaster 'best practices' query
by David Lesher 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

A query to help educate me. Feel free to flame away; the week is young. Every site should accept/respond to "postmaster" -- T/F? Or is it "Every site running mail".... Or every box running mail? IOW: Which of the following are required vice recommended vice best practives, etc. a) postmaster(a)example.com b) postmaster(a)mail.example.com c) postmaster(a)wizzbang.example.com d) postmaster(a)pop.example.com e) postmaster(a)cisco.example.com and most important to me: where to I go to justify the decisions on same? -- 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

7 7

Fwd: Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
by Rodney Thayer 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

>The Host Requirements RFC says that if you support "receiver SMTP", you >must support the reserved mailbox "Postmaster". > >In my experience, interpreting that statement has been a pre-existing >exercise for the readers for nearly a decade, with many results. The Host Requirements RFC also says, I believe, that you are to respond to PING -- try that with www.microsoft.com. My point is, it appears that the Host Requirements RFC seems to be "interpreted" in the real world. Lots of sites seem to not implement postmaster. But then again, sites seem to not maintain contact info in the whois database that's valid, and I would think that would impact network operations even more... Is there a BCP-like list somewhere? Or has this, like other things, been discusssed to death on NANOG in decades gone by...

2 1

Training and civil defense
by Sean Donelan 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

The military tends to be more open about their activites than private companies. The Air Force public affairs office put out this report how they kept the National Military Command Center running during the crisis on September 11. http://www.af.mil/news/Sep2001/n20010918_1305.shtml The key thing to notice is the level of training and equipment available to the personnel. Although this involved the military, you will see similar level of training among operators of chemical plants and nuclear plants who need to stay at their posts while safely shutting down the plant. It is not common among Internet operators. In general untrained people should stay out of the way, or evacuate. It really isn't an issue of bravery, or volunteering to stay at the helm of a sinking ship. Untrained people are a risk to both themselves and to other people around them. If your aren't trained how to handle bombs, hazardous materials, etc you should evacuate. Evacuating your NOC, or colo or call center may be the best thing to do during a crisis (hurricane, bombing, anthrax, etc). But ISPs should pre-plan how they will keep their network running in a lights-out/unattended situation. In addition, you should pre-plan with your local emergency responders what they will do. Very few emergency responders have received training how to deal with an a typical telephone CO or Internet exchange point. I've talked to fire departments in the Bay Area, and several of them are worried about sending firefighters inside some Internet data centers in an emergency.

1 0

Re: [NEWS] FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems (fwd)
by Paul Vixie 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Warning: dangerously irrelevant and completely off-topic for the NANOG list. > I'd never have guessed that Vixie was a supporter of a police state. You've got me all wrong. I support the police in my state (country). > I'll stop supporting democracy when they pry my vote out of my cold dead > hands.... Right. When my kids and I line up for exercises at the local school most mornings, you'll find me, hat in one hand and the other over my heart, facing the flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and meaning every word of it except maybe the part about God which I consider to be ambiguous. And when paying taxes I am particularly glad that the cost of my family's security comes at merely a cost measurable as a fraction of my income. YMMV of course. If you don't like the deal you're being offered you should find a better one. Somewhere along with the power to vote particular politicians in or out must come some respect for the laws those people create, even the ones we don't think are perfect. The FBI has a hellish job on their hands right now. Actually it's been a hellish job for a long time but it seems like only recently we're all aware of how hellish it is. I don't think that redefining what an ISP is in order to blunt the obvious intent of Omnivore (or whatever) is a useful exercise of democratic power.

9 8

universal whois
by Mark Kosters 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Hi Following our presentation at NANOG 23... VeriSign Applied Research has started to undertake a project called Universal Whois - aka uwho. The hope of this project is to attempt to create a better administrative lookup service for the various registries, registrars, and RIR's. Right now, we are in the requirements phase and would appreciate your input via the uwho(a)lists.verisignlabs.com mailing list (use the uwho-request thing to subscribe). The web site is located at http://uwho.verisignlabs.com which decribes the project in a bit more detail. Thanks, Mark -- Mark Kosters markk(a)netsol.com Verisign Applied Research

1 0

Unix Timestamp
by Brandon Handeland 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Does anyone have a formula to convert a unix time stamp into the current time? I know it is January 1st, 1970, in UTC format. Just need some example code. I'm trying to export some data from a HP/UX box into a MSSQL database and need to use the timestamp feature of MSSQL. Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Handeland Brandon(a)wyoming.com Senior Network Engineer wyoming.com NOC (307) 857-1092 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

11 11

DVMRP tunnel to the MBONE (seeking MBONE end)
by Joe Abley 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Wanted: one DVMRP tunnel to the MBONE. Router terminating tunnel on my side is well-connected, in MFN colo in Reston, VA. Anybody feel like hooking me up? Direct replies would be good. Thanks!

1 0

Fwd: Call for Volunteers: IAB/IETF Nominating Committee
by RJ Atkinson 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

If NANOG folks want the IETF to have good operator input, then operationally minded folks need to volunteer for the IETF nominating committee. The NomCom is responsible for nominating IAB and IESG members. Last year's NomCom had a nicely rounded participation from developers, network operators, and corporate users. If you are qualified to be on IETF NomCom, please consider volunteering. There is less than 1 week left, so if you are interested and haven't sent in your email to the special email address yet, please do so now. Speaking just for myself. Ran rja(a)inet.org >From: tytso(a)mit.edu >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Subject: Call for Volunteers: IAB/IETF Nominating Committee (2nd call) >Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:57:24 -0400 >Sender: scoya(a)cnri.reston.va.us > > >Many thanks to those members of the IETF community who have volunteered >to serve on the IAB/IESG Nominating committee. The list of those people >who have volunteered can be found at: > > http://thunk.org/tytso/nomcom-volunteers.html > >If you believe you have volunteered, but you cannot find your name on >this list, please send me e-mail so I can look into it. > >If you have not yet volunteered, please consider doing so. In order to >be eligible to serve on the Nominating Committee, you must have attended >at least 2 of the last 3 IETF's. > >The time commitment will range from 3-5 hours a week from November to >January, and will consist of weekly teleconferences plus time spent >interviewing and reading e-mail from prospective candidates as well as >working group chairs and other IETF participants. This is a significant >time commitment, but participation by IETF volunteers is critical if we >are to select the best leadership for our community. So I encourage all >eligible volunteers who feel that they can offer their time and efforts >to respond. > >To volunteer please send e-mail to the following e-mail address: > > nomcom-volunteer(a)thunk.org > >A list of those people who have volunteered and who have been confirmed >by the Secretariat as having attended at least two of the last three >IETF meetings can be found at: > > http://www.thunk.org/tytso/nomcom-volunteers.html > >The deadline for volunteering to serve on the Nominating Committee is >5pm EDT, October 29, 2001. > >Based on the list of those who have volunteered, we will run the >selection process and announce the results the week of October 29, 2001. >Ten (10) NomCom voting members will be chosen from the pool of >volunteers according to the procedure described by Donald Eastlake in >RFC 2777, "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection". The source of >randomness will be based on the number of shares traded of 12 stocks >selected by the NomCom chair on October 30, 2001. > >The official number of shares traded (denoted in 000s) will be drawn >from the October 31, 2000 Wall Street Journal which reports the sales >figures from the previous day - October 30, 2001. If trading in any >stock is suspended, then the number of shares traded will be taken from >the first day prior to October 30, 2001 where the number of shares >traded in that stock was non-zero. > >Thank you, > > Theodore Ts'o > tytso(a)mit.edu

1 0

Re: [NEWS] FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems (fwd)
by Paul Vixie 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Not picking on anyone in particular but just plucking an example at ~random: > Funny you should mention that, as I think we are about to find out. It's possible that the feds are going about this in the wrong way. Rather than seeking ways to expose that wrongness if any, we ought to be putting our effort into figuring out what they're trying to do and then making a recommendation (or several) as to how to actually get it done. Put your shoulder to this wheel, folks. Or find someplace else to live. (There's a four year sunset provision in the law they're passing tonight.)

8 9

Re: Unix Timestamp
by rs＠seastrom.com 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Brandon Handeland <Brandon(a)wyoming.com> writes: > Does anyone have a formula to convert a unix time stamp into the > current time? I know it is January 1st, 1970, in UTC format. Just > need some example code. > > I'm trying to export some data from a HP/UX box into a MSSQL database and > need to use the timestamp feature of MSSQL. The best code I've seen for this (and which knows about most variants of the timestamp seen in the wild) was written by Steve Bellovin et al, and can be found in the inn distribution in lib/parsedate.y ---Rob

2 1