- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Unix Timestamp
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

In message <87elnvtsdd.fsf(a)valhalla.seastrom.com>, Robert E. Seastrom writes: > > >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 Thanks -- but I think that my code performs the inverse function. That is, it converts lots of different time formats *into* Unix time. Also, so much of the code was rewritten by others in the mid-1990's that I'm not sure it's fair to call it mine any more. (My code was written in 1979, when 'int' was a 16-bit datatype, 'long' didn't exist, and the yacc stack was composed of 16-bit values only -- all of which are why it needed to be rewritten... As a fringe benefit, my original code not only had y2k issues, it refused to convert any dates after 2000.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

1 0

Re: Unix Timestamp
by Steven M. Bellovin 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

In message <5.1.0.14.2.20011022123839.05490760(a)calamity.wyoming.com>, Brandon H andeland 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. > How accurate does your conversion need to be? Do you need timezones? Daylight time? On any Unix system, including the open-source clones, grab a copy of ctime.c; its job is to do exactly that. If you want to approximate the answer -- well, there are 86400 seconds/day, and either 365 or 366 days/year. The remaind when dividing by 86400 is the number of seconds into the current day, in UTC. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com

1 0

mae-west problems (AS8251)
by MarcoH 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

We (AS 8251) are having problems with the announcements one of our upstreams is making on mae-west. From the 2 prefixes they announce for us, 1 is working fine and the other is unreachable. If somebody who`s peering with Carrier1 at mae-west would be so kind to see if there are any differences in the annoucements for 62.216.0.0/19 and 195.64.64.0/19 I would be thankfull. 62.216.0.0/19 is the one working, traffic for 195.64.64.0/19 drops at mea-west. We`re also working directly with C1 to sort things out, but any usefull information is welcome. MarcoH Cistron Internet BV (Netherlands)

1 0

Nanog 23 questons
by Lucy E. Lynch 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

Notes: send questions to: questions(a)nanog.org the archive is here: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/nanog23/ Please use a keyword in your subject related to the talk you're addressing. Use the keyword tech: for technical feeedback please. Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 Cell: (541) 912-7998 5419127998(a)mobile.att.net

1 0

Fwd: Re: NetSol's PGP auth ... and the road not taken
by Rodney Thayer 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

>From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)ufp.org> > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:24:17AM -0700, Joe Rhett wrote: > > Don't waste your time. We had PGP auth working for the last 6 years. It > > will slow down any change you want to make by 3-5 days. Around 30% will get > > rejected for no reason whatsoever, and much more fun stuff. > >I find these comments interesting. I have been using PGP auth for >a number of years and found it to work just fine. From the PGP implementor community, we've seen reports that the NetSol use of PGP has had issues in the past, things being garbled or lost, other sorts of things. The implication was that there were issues with the PGP implementation they were using. I've heard multiple stories of people having less-than-sound customer service experiences with this mechanism.

1 0

Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
by Gregory Hicks 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

> From: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:33:56 -0400 (EDT) > > A query to help educate me. Feel free to flame away; > the week is young. > > Every site should accept/respond to "postmaster" -- T/F? True. Required by RFC 822, para 6.3 "Reserved Address" and discussed by RFC 2142 and RFC 2821. Although RFC 822 does not specify "sites running mail", 2142 does, in fact, specify that <postmaster> must exist "...on all hosts that have an SMTP server." Although RFC 2142 says this, further reading of the RFC and supporting RFCs implies that the "domain-name" must accept mail to <postmaster@domain-name> and forward to the proper person/mailbox. So I guess, if you are the proud owner of a domain, you must have routing that supports <postmaster@domain>..." In other words, ... Connected to the internet with a domain name? Must have a <postmaster> mailbox. > > Or is it "Every site running mail".... The RFC states > Or every box running mail? RFC states " on all hosts that have an SMTP server..." > > 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 They should all be recognized *IF* each of these boxes run SMTP. <postmaster(a)example.com> should be recognized in any case. Best practice? I define postmaster == root == some person or group of persons. Does everyone do this? Nope! Not by a long shot. I get flak over the policy. I can categorically state, however, that the machines where I get mail from root seem to have less problems than those where root mail is ignored. Does this definition result in some unwanted email? Yep. But, the one message that says "I found this problem, please fix." is worth all the chaff that just get deleted. This is especially true when the problem causes the machine to die in such a fashion that it cannot be restarted in a 'sane' manner and the only clue is a message from root... YMMV. > > and most important to me: where to I go to justify the > decisions on same? Depends on the services you offer: >From Para 5, RFC 2142: 5. SUPPORT MAILBOX NAMES FOR SPECIFIC INTERNET SERVICES For major Internet protocol services, there is a mailbox defined for receiving queries and reports. (Synonyms are included, here, due to their extensive installed base.) MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS ----------- ---------------- --------------------------- POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822] HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035] USENET NNTP [RFC977] NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068] WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER UUCP UUCP [RFC976] FTP FTP [RFC959] Regards, Gregory Hicks --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --from the Cryptography list

1 0

RE: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us
by Eric Germann 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

While you're at it, can you patch in the floor mikes or have the speakers repeat the floor questions? They're answering question we don't have any idea about. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Metcalf [mailto:prelude@mindspring.com] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:52 PM > To: ekgermann(a)cctec.com > Subject: Re: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us > > > Yes, can someone check the plugs? Is everything grounded? Its > really bad... > > andrew > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Germann" <ekgermann(a)cctec.com> > To: <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:22 PM > Subject: Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us > > > > > > > > > > > ========================================================================== > > Eric Germann CCTec > > ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 > > http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 > > Fax: 603 825 5893 > > > > "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed > > complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, > > and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade > > interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com> on NANOG > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Real Problems
by Lucy E. Lynch 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

All - The real audio sound problems are being worked on - the multicast streams have no known sound problems, so if thats an option for you - fire up. Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 Cell: (541) 912-7998 5419127998(a)mobile.att.net

1 0

NANOG audio problems
by Wayne E. Bouchard 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

There are some real problems with the audio in the RA broadcast. As has already been noted, there is a severe hum but additionally, the floor mics don't appear to be hooked into the broadcast. (Perhaps one of them is actually causing the above problem?) For those of us who don't read lips, can someone work on this? Thanks..

1 0

Nasty hum on the RA feed to the rest of us
by Eric Germann 22 Oct '01

22 Oct '01

========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <avg(a)kotovnik.com> on NANOG

1 0