- Test - lists.nanog.org

SPAM: beware of CRL! you are LOOSING EMAIL and LOOSING CONTACTS
by Steve Carter 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

Thought this might interest some of you guys, especially those at CRL and one other fella...... >;) BTW, I am the messenger, not the author..... -Steve. From: dabao38(a)hotmail.com >Subject: beware of CRL! you are LOOSING EMAIL and LOOSING CONTACTS >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:21:26 -0600 >Message-ID: <887350032.1587019783(a)dejanews.com> >Newsgroups: >ba.internet,alt.internet,alt.internet.access,alt.internet.commerce,alt. internet. >providers.america,alt.internet.services >Organization: Deja News Posting Service >Path: >news.iswest.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbrid ge.uorego >n.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail >X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 13 06:07:13 1998 GMT >X-Authenticated-Sender: dabao38(a)hotmail.com >X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95) >X-Originating-IP-Addr: 207.171.196.242 (sf-pm10-18-242.dialup.slip.net) >Lines: 43 >Xref: news.iswest.net ba.internet:34461 alt.internet:15772 >alt.internet.commerce:62928 alt.internet.providers.america:1533 >alt.internet.services:135128 > >Why C R L SUCKS AND YOU TOO SHOULD DROP THEM: 1) Your email address at >CRL only works with the portion of the world THEY like. Did you know they >block off many servers and all of their users from being able to reach >you because someone onced might have used that machine to send commercial >email? And they will NOT tell you this nor admit to it until you've >mysteriously lost touch with your contacts and loved ones. A few >examples: kiss your love ones goodbye from hotmail.com, juno.com, >hinet.net (this would be the entire nation for Taiwan). They say they are >doing this to fight spam, ironically a lot of spam is actually generated >from CRL. More like kissing up to this self appointed Internet Lord Paul >Vixie who runs the Real Time Blackhole List (the list which does this >emai censoring and blocking, with out any concern for end users' >connectivity). This guy prettymuch figured he has the power to decide who >you can and can not get email from. And they are banking on you NOT >FINDING OUT about it. And guess what, my spam has not decreased, but >actually increased since they used this none-selective block.. they did >managed to cut me off from my important contacts, but not spam. 2) Try >it. Their Dial up in San Francisco and Southbay hang up on you or do not >answer 70% of the time during prime time and 50% during off peak (this >was my experience, not scientific.. but still). They refuse to upgrade >beyond 28.8k (spending all the money they made on the fat corporate job >hogs). 3) Tech support? What tech support? When I confronted them about >the missing email they actually yelled at me (after 10-15 emails to get a >response, phone calls? forget it..) and told me it was my contacts' fault >that they subscribed to the "bad, bad spamming company for ISP). Imagin >if your phone company told you you can not get calls from your mom >because she lives in an area with a phone company they did not like.. >Since when did CRL figure out dictatorship was in again? 4)They will NOT >cancel your service and will keep on charging your credit card... Many >other users complained about this, it was even mentioned in PC Magazine's >ISP review. There are many more reasons why they bite, but I really do >not want to waste my energy over those bastards anymore. I am actually >the last of my associates to drop their service because I do not want to >change my email and web address for the sake of business (I've already >spent a lot on printing them on all kinds of materials). Face it, CRL has >gotten fat off of it's customers, now it is screwing them. The email >block was what really did it. How would you like a phone service >(especially for business) that can only take calls from a PART of the >country and the world? Email me if you want to start a class action >lawsuit against them. > >-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

2 1

Operational issue: Mae-west
by dlr＠bungi.com 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

The good folks at MFS, in their continuing attempted at making mae-west a more interesting place to attempt to peer, are doing yet more unscheduled upgrades. The latest is their attempt to add more cross connected capacity in the form of an OC3 to giga5. When they attempted this (in an unannounced upgrade this morning), of course everything melted, and we enjoyed packet loss up to 75% this morning to most of our peers. If anyone can get MFS's attention, could you please remind them about mae-west(a)nsipo.arc.nasa.gov? It's a good way to let people at mae west know about what's going on. Dave Rand -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

2 1

Inexperienced Seeks Partner
by 31337 h4ck3r 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

Dear Peering Co-Ordinators or your respective NSPs. I have been researching peering policies and current peering infrastructure and I want to contact you to make you aware of my offerings. Five of my friends and I have a dialup connection to 5 exchange points. We are using 33.6 US Robotics Sportster Win-Modems with a linux box running gated. We are applying for our own ASN, and we expect to get it soon. Our content includes 2 irc servers, (one on efnet and the other on undernet) and a web farm that serves 0 day warez and login/passwds for over 1,000 porn sites. I think that we have higher quality content and audience than most other companies dream of. Peering with us will assure that your customers get the best possible connectivity to what is obviously the creme brulee' of the internet. We currently have connections at the Baltimore Nap, New York Nap, Boston MAE g-Nap and the Latin Internet Exchange. Also, Could someone from Agis contact me ASAP? I believe we finally met your peering requirements. Thank you for your time, great apostles of the Internet, who were there when the commandments(RFCs) were written, and when Jesus, (Vint Cerf) still walked among the living (engineers). I am expectantly looking forward to your peering requests. Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely, Chuck U. Farley ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

8 7

Update on The NANOG Channel
by Eric Germann 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

In the interest of ecumenicism, The NANOG Channel is now NetCaster compliant, as well as an MS IE 4.0 Channel. To subscribe via your browsers, http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog BTW, about 30 people are interested enough to pull this stuff on their desk every morning .... Eric

1 0

Re: Inexperienced Seeks Partner
by Patrick W. Gilmore 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

At 08:50 AM 2/13/98 -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote: >> friends and I have a dialup connection to 5 exchange points. We are >> using 33.6 US Robotics Sportster Win-Modems with a linux box running >> gated. We are applying for our own ASN, and we expect to get it soon. > >Winmodems with a Linux box? Last I checked, there was no software driver, >nor was there any intent on developing one (given USR's strict >non-disclosure policies)... Am I missing something here? Yes. The punch line. ;) TTFN, patrick P.S. Heh. "1337 h4ck3r" ;) ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance Today" **************************************************************

2 1

Re: Inexperienced Seeks Partner
by Gerald Andrew Winters 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

> Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely, > > Chuck U. Farley Should I brush the dust off my pig-latin, Chuck? Let's just say that this is not the best way to get people to take you seriously. --Gerald Winters

1 0

Broken domain statistics...
by Dalvenjah FoxFire 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

Hi all, I'd finally had it up to here with people coming from misconfigured domains trying to connect to my servers and filling up the logs with 'Host name mismatch..' errors, so I decided to put together a bunch of scripts to try and see exactly how widespread the problem of bogus DNS info is. What I found was kind of surprising. Here're the raw stats for my test (done on the entire com zone): Total domains checked: 1401150 Domains with NO good nameservers (all responded non-auth): 236008 Domains with NO good nameservers (some timed out): 107482 Domains with at least one bad non-auth (but most/all answering):99211 Bringing that into percentages, about 17% of all domains in COM have NO good nameservers listed. If one adds in the nameservers that timed out, that number goes up to 25%, and adding in domains with at least one bad nameserver brings the number up to 32% of the domains in .com that have bad nameserver info registered. Please note, it appears that it's not entirely accurate to view the nameservers that timed out as necessarily 'bad' in my test - several known good nameservers timed out during the runs, and I only had a retry of 1 (so the nameservers got 1 chance to give the correct data within 4 seconds). It's very interesting, however, that the number of domains that had all listed nameservers respond, all of which responded non-authoritatively (i.e. 'I don't know about this domain') is so high. Here is my testing methodology: I read in the entire com zone, and when I found a line containing dom IN NS server I would spawn off a 'dig ANY dom @server +retry=1', and parse the output to see if it contained 'aa', the authoritative flag. If it did, it was a good domain. If it didn't, it was a bad domain. Timeouts and non-authoritative responses were counted separately. I then had three variables for each domain - goodResponses, badResponses, and timeouts. Domains where badResponses and timeouts were both 0 were considered 'good'. Domains where goodResponses and timeouts were both 0 were considered to have 'no good nameservers (but all responded)'. Else, domains where goodResponses was 0 were considered bad (noting that some queries timed out). Beyond that, if there was 1 or more badResponses, it was listed in the 'at least one bad non-auth NS' list. The processes that did this would fork out about 80 processes per host to run the digs; I was on a reasonably fast connection, so bandwidth shouldn't have become a problem as far as increasing the timeouts I got. I split the com zone file into 200,000 line sections and ran one section per host. I then stopped the stats collection server after every few runs to gather statistics. The queries occurred over a period of 12 hours between 3pm and 3am Pacific Time, Tuesday 2/9 - Wednesday 2/10. I've put up the code, results, and the logs of non-auth queries and timed-out queries at ftp1.dal.net:/pub/misc/domain-test/. The files haven't (and won't) propogate to the mirror sites. (Note, this machine will be switching IPs sometime this week, so there may be a period of an hour or two when the machine will be unreachable.) If I've got some sort of flaw in my logic, please let me know; I'm willing to correct it and run the test again. But it looks right. I haven't tested the net/edu/org domains, but I suspect that since folks using those are slightly more clued than the folks using .com, the numbers of bogus domains will be lower. And if it is, it means that 17% of the folks on the internet are paying for domains that don't work. Either that, or something else is broken. I'm posting here because I feel it is an operational issue; that, plus I feel there're more folks here who can and will hammer at InterNIC to start doing something to enforce their policies that require real, authoritative nameservers. One last request - if you plan to use this data somewhere, *please* listen to any responses that may show up here explaining how it might be wrong, and *please* go through my methodology and find out for yourself if it looks right. I don't want to be responsible for any false/overinflated claims out there }:P . And please provide context, too, especially where the 'nameserver timed out' statistics are concerned. Anyhow, there it is. -dalvenjah -- Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) Stupid people shouldn't breed. Founder, the DALnet IRC Network e-mail: dalvenjah(a)dal.net WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/ whois: SN90 Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/

14 13

Re: Broken domain statistics...
by Mike Bird 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

>Phillip Vandry <vandry(a)Mlink.NET> writes: > How do you find them all? You could check your DNS logs for lame > delegations and collect a list, but that's not all that great. 1) whois yourdomain.com Look for the FQDN of the first nameserver, say dns1.yourdomain.com. This is what the Internic calls it which may be different from what reverse DNS calls it. 2) whois dns1.yourdomain.com Look for the record identifier at the top, say DNS123-HST. 3) whois "server DNS123-HST" Lists the domains served by that name server. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Bird Tel: 209-742-5000 FAX: 209-966-3117 President POP: 209-742-5333 NOC: 209-742-9979 Iron Mtn Systems http://member.yosemite.net/

1 0

Seeking European (ISPs?) for bandwidth exchange
by hhui＠arcfour.com 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

OK I know NANOG may not be the right place to post a personals ad, but young, attractive content provider with good connexions seeks European partner for bandwidth exchange and maybe more. Should have spacious racks and big pipes, a desire to see foreign lands, money and age not an issue. We'll start off slow and see what it could lead to. If interested please contact: hhui(a)arcfour.com

1 0

Need Cisco stuff, part two
by Alex Rubenstein 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

Hi. This is the last message of this type I will send for a while, but: I need a few cards, and I am specifically looking to see if anyone has any *used* (read; cheaper than new) of the following: PA-H, Single HSSI Card for the 7206 NP-1HSSI, Single HSSI Card for the 4700 And a DS-3 ATM Card for the 4700 (Coax). I am looking for this stuff to be shipped to me Friday, or if nearby we will pick it up. If you want to sell it to me new, don't bother, I already have a source. Thanks!

1 0