Nanog 0404
By Date

Most recent messages
869 messages sorted by: [ author ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ attachment ]
About this archive
Other mail archives

Starting: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 00:45:21 EST
Ending: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 10:13:57 EDT

• RE: Spam with no purpose? william(at)elan.net (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 01:48:59 EST)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 00:51:45 EST)
• Re: SMTP behavior: 553 5.5.2 Bad command format(h) Simon Lockhart (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 18:23:53 EST)
• Is your domain licensed? Stephen J. Wilcox (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 05:48:55 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Jerry Eyers (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 08:28:31 EST)
• Doesn't appear to be a 'foolish' item.. Robert Mathews (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 08:55:35 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? (no name) (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 09:00:18 EST)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 09:35:10 EST)
• RE: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem (no name) (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 09:38:37 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Randy Bush (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 10:03:35 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? (no name) (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 10:19:02 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? Richard Cox (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 10:23:46 EST)
• Re: the value of reverse address lookups? (no name) (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 10:21:47 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Randy Bush (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 10:45:48 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? william(at)elan.net (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:15:10 EST)
• RFC2549 revisited (no name) (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 11:06:12 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? Eric A. Hall (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 11:12:43 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 11:25:15 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? william(at)elan.net (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:29:20 EST)
• RE: Mail with no purpose? Michel Py (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 11:49:41 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 11:59:12 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? Richard Cox (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:08:00 EST)
• Re: RFC2549 revisited Crist Clark (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:24:33 EST)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Jonathan Nichols (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 13:36:46 EST)
• New IPv4 Allocations to the RIPE NCC Steve Conte (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 16:59:33 EST)
• .mil contact information German Martinez (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 17:49:06 EST)
• Re: RFC2549 revisited Steven M. Bellovin (Thu Apr 01 2004 - 20:44:51 EST)
• Re: RFC2549 revisited David Lesher (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 00:56:22 EST)
• Falsifying business records Sean Donelan (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 05:30:51 EST)
• The Cidr Report (no name) (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 07:00:11 EST)
• OT: Need Network Consultants for Focus Group jm (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 08:58:20 EST)
• RE: Mail with no purpose? Michel Py (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 12:25:53 EST)
• IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon update: 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8 Rob Thomas (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 17:19:13 EST)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Paul Jakma (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 19:00:58 EST)
• Re: Mail with no purpose? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 02 2004 - 07:17:54 EST)
• NANOG list reverse DNS handling Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 10:58:21 EST)
• Re: NANOG list reverse DNS handling Mike Lewinski (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 16:02:54 EST)
• Re: .mil contact information Michael Wiacek (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 16:51:42 EST)
• Re: NANOG list reverse DNS handling Daniel Roesen (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 16:52:21 EST)
• RE: IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon update: 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8 Michel Py (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 23:07:24 EST)
• RE: IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon update: 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8 Rob Thomas (Sat Apr 03 2004 - 23:15:39 EST)
• Re: IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon update: 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8 James (Sun Apr 04 2004 - 16:42:27 EDT)
• Re: IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon update: 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8 Randy Bush (Sun Apr 04 2004 - 16:50:37 EDT)
• he.net or other ipv6 tunnelbroker service? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sun Apr 04 2004 - 21:59:27 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Sun Apr 04 2004 - 23:43:23 EDT)
• Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Andy Johnson (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 10:49:15 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 11:08:02 EDT)
• NANOG 31 Meeting Information Carol Wadsworth (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 11:29:23 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Matthew Crocker (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 11:43:17 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Andy Johnson (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 12:25:18 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Jason Dixon (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 12:49:21 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Todd Vierling (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 13:16:52 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Paul Vixie (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 15:05:36 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Dan Hollis (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 15:33:15 EDT)
• Re: he.net or other ipv6 tunnelbroker service? Jesper Skriver (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 16:44:06 EDT)
• Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:03:05 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Niels Bakker (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:09:45 EDT)
• RE: Mailserver requirements Mike Walter (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:18:28 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements (no name) (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:21:21 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Charles Sprickman (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:25:05 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Roman Volf (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:25:15 EDT)
• RE: Mailserver requirements (no name) (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:30:36 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:32:08 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Daniel Roesen (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:42:28 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Richard Welty (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:48:19 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:53:15 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements (no name) (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:57:23 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Daniel Roesen (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 18:55:09 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Niels Bakker (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 19:48:59 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Jeff Workman (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 20:03:58 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Richard Welty (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 21:16:45 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 21:59:49 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Scott Call (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 22:15:03 EDT)
• Re: he.net or other ipv6 tunnelbroker service? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 22:50:54 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Todd Vierling (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 22:51:24 EDT)
• Re: Spam with no purpose? Chris Adams (Mon Apr 05 2004 - 23:53:51 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Paul Jakma (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 00:30:18 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 01:35:40 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Paul Vixie (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 01:36:42 EDT)
• RE: Spam with no purpose? Paul Jakma (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 01:45:54 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 05:23:34 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Jim Segrave (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 06:15:59 EDT)
• Wide Outage at DSL.net Drew Linsalata (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 08:35:55 EDT)
• Re: Mailserver requirements Peter Galbavy (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 10:12:44 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Joe Abley (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 11:02:33 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 12:37:29 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Matthew Crocker (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 13:14:31 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Joe St Sauver (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 13:27:34 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 13:28:57 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Joel Jaeggli (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 14:02:41 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 14:43:39 EDT)
• TE Panel in SF Susan Harris (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 15:21:19 EDT)
• NSA wiretap leads to arrest Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 15:29:47 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Dan Hollis (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 16:17:53 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Petri Helenius (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 16:38:32 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 16:43:56 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Dan Hollis (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 16:44:53 EDT)
• CW Routing Registry source change to SAVVIS. Padliya, Deepak (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 16:56:52 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 01:36:51 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? (no name) (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 07:18:56 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Erik Haagsman (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 08:03:50 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Dave Howe (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 08:25:45 EDT)
• Re: CW Routing Registry source change to SAVVIS. Steve Linford (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 09:14:11 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Erik Haagsman (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 08:51:12 EDT)
• OT: Determining toll free # ownership Jon R. Kibler (Tue Apr 06 2004 - 13:04:27 EDT)
• Re: OT: Determining toll free # ownership David Lesher (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 10:16:09 EDT)
• Re: OT: Determining toll free # ownership Lou Katz (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 14:03:08 EDT)
• Re: OT: Determining toll free # ownership Sean Donelan (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 15:22:42 EDT)
• Re: OT: Determining toll free # ownership Steven M. Bellovin (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 15:58:39 EDT)
• BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Hank Nussbacher (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 05:30:38 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Magnus Eriksson (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 10:10:54 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T vijay gill (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 10:41:29 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Blaine Christian (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 11:02:49 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T David Meyer (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 11:07:01 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Pekka Savola (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 12:33:37 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Michel Py (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 12:40:06 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Blaine Christian (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 12:50:25 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Iljitsch van Beijnum (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 13:36:38 EDT)
• Looking for contact at RoadRunner Adam Debus (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 14:34:09 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Blaine Christian (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 14:37:55 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Iljitsch van Beijnum (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 15:45:29 EDT)
• RE: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Tony Li (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 16:04:59 EDT)
• Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T Pekka Savola (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 16:29:56 EDT)
• Any good Wave Boxes to do this? Deepak Jain (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 17:05:49 EDT)
• Re: Any good Wave Boxes to do this? Matthew Crocker (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 18:34:41 EDT)
• Re: Any good Wave Boxes to do this? Deepak Jain (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 18:54:39 EDT)
• Re: Any good Wave Boxes to do this? Mikael Abrahamsson (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 04:55:42 EDT)
• TISCALI Shazad (Thu Apr 08 2004 - 12:31:13 EDT)
• TISCALI Shazad (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 08:46:00 EDT)
• TISCALI Shazad (Wed Apr 07 2004 - 10:24:43 EDT)
• The spyware that loved me Sean Donelan (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 05:16:09 EDT)
• Re: TISCALI Miquel van Smoorenburg (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 05:25:30 EDT)
• The Cidr Report (no name) (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 08:00:01 EDT)
• IPv6 IGP Daniel Corbe (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 14:29:21 EDT)
• Re: IPv6 IGP Jared Mauch (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 14:33:51 EDT)
• IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Robert Blayzor (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 14:53:16 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Petri Helenius (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 15:20:23 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Robert Blayzor (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 15:38:19 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Steven M. Bellovin (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 15:50:18 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Pekka Savola (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 16:27:17 EDT)
• Re: IPv6 IGP Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 17:21:43 EDT)
• Re: IPv6 IGP Simon Leinen (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 17:27:58 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 17:31:53 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Christopher L. Morrow (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 17:52:40 EDT)
• Re: IPv6 IGP Joe Abley (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 16:45:49 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Niels Bakker (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:03:50 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Christopher L. Morrow (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:14:38 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Yann Berthier (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:16:35 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:17:30 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Niels Bakker (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:31:25 EDT)
• Re: IOS 12.3(x) Strange service ports open on router Niels Bakker (Fri Apr 09 2004 - 18:35:46 EDT)
• worm information Christopher J. Wolff (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 11:35:51 EDT)
• Re: worm information Jeff Workman (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 13:53:15 EDT)
• Re: worm information Darrell Greenwood (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:19:19 EDT)
• Re: Anti-Spam Router -- opinions? Hank Nussbacher (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 15:24:56 EDT)
• Re: worm information ravi pina (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:30:29 EDT)
• RE: worm information Christopher J. Wolff (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:37:15 EDT)
• Re: worm information ravi pina (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:43:37 EDT)
• RE: worm information Christopher J. Wolff (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:50:00 EDT)
• Lazy network operators Chris Boyd (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 15:26:46 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Richard Cox (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 15:39:00 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Eric A. Hall (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 16:35:18 EDT)
• Weird virus activity from AOL user(s) Stephen J. Wilcox (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 16:57:06 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators (no name) (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 16:59:07 EDT)
• Worm Triggers Attacks on File-Trading Services Sean Donelan (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 20:13:01 EDT)
• Re: Worm Triggers Attacks on File-Trading Services Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 20:20:06 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 22:22:45 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators George William Herbert (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 22:47:25 EDT)
• Packet anonymity is the problem? Sean Donelan (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 22:48:16 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Sean Donelan (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 22:56:05 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Todd Vierling (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:18:20 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Dan Hollis (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:30:43 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Dan Hollis (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:32:15 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Paul Vixie (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:36:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:41:48 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Jeff Workman (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 23:45:20 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Scott Call (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 00:20:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Avleen Vig (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 00:29:34 EDT)
• TTY phone fraud and abuse Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 00:31:15 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Scott Call (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 01:15:49 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 04:32:33 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Yann Berthier (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 05:51:45 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 06:22:43 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Henry Linneweh (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 06:23:23 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Yann Berthier (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 07:27:45 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Provo (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 07:58:09 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 11:44:44 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Owen DeLong (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 13:25:52 EDT)
• abuse standards & consumer reports William Allen Simpson (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 13:27:46 EDT)
• Re: abuse standards & consumer reports Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 14:01:27 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Petri Helenius (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 14:28:24 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Maimon (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 14:45:40 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 15:27:28 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Jeff Workman (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 17:56:19 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Joe Maimon (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 18:03:39 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Jeff Workman (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 18:17:11 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 18:55:12 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Steven M. Bellovin (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 19:05:21 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Steven M. Bellovin (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 19:09:14 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Steven M. Bellovin (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 19:19:37 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 21:48:51 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Steven M. Bellovin (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 22:04:39 EDT)
• Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... McBurnett, Jim (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 21:41:05 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Geo. (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 22:48:21 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Stephen Sprunk (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 23:06:36 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Avleen Vig (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 00:56:16 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:02:20 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:03:26 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 05:27:20 EDT)
• Re: worm information Jack McCarthy (Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:36:37 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Daniel Reed (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 08:09:13 EDT)
• looking for cisco person in regards to completewhois william(at)elan.net (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 09:58:25 EDT)
• curious Scott Stursa (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 10:26:15 EDT)
• Re: curious Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 10:36:34 EDT)
• Re: curious John Neiberger (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 10:51:58 EDT)
• Re: curious John Neiberger (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 10:55:43 EDT)
• Re: curious Tim Wilde (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 11:00:11 EDT)
• Re: curious John Neiberger (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 11:04:08 EDT)
• Re: curious Scott Stursa (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 11:18:27 EDT)
• RE: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... McBurnett, Jim (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 11:54:45 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Robert Blayzor (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 12:31:59 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 12:40:00 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Steven Champeon (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 12:50:18 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Roland Perry (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 12:15:35 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Robert Blayzor (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 13:01:28 EDT)
• Re: looking for cisco person in regards to completewhois Christian Malo (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 13:15:52 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Eric A. Hall (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 13:20:01 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Steven Champeon (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 14:50:17 EDT)
• Re: The spyware that loved me Scott Weeks (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 15:11:55 EDT)
• Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Sean Donelan (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 15:53:20 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Stephen J. Wilcox (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:03:38 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Richard Cox (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:05:22 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) (no name) (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:29:43 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Deepak Jain (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:38:59 EDT)
• Cox Communications Network/NOC Chris Neitzert (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:46:25 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Dan Hollis (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 16:26:17 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Niels Bakker (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:23:16 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Eric A. Hall (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:29:55 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Steve Atkins (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:34:04 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:49:36 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Niels Bakker (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:53:58 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Steve Atkins (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 17:47:10 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) J.D. Falk (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 18:23:54 EDT)
• Re: curious Randy Bush (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 18:49:10 EDT)
• Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc.... Stephen J. Wilcox (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 19:00:55 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Stephen J. Wilcox (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 19:05:31 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) (no name) (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 19:20:59 EDT)
• Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Paul Vixie (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 01:43:32 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 02:04:04 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 12:23:21 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 12:28:17 EDT)
• Anyone alive at ALTDB? Jason Lixfeld (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 12:55:24 EDT)
• Computer room A/C Christopher J. Wolff (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 12:57:47 EDT)
• Dialin access in USA, off list (no name) (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 13:22:16 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 15:07:38 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 15:39:46 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 15:52:47 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Eric Krichbaum (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 16:05:41 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 16:32:53 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Andrew - Supernews (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 16:54:40 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 17:15:15 EDT)
• Cr/Hackers Strike Advanced Computing Networks Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 18:59:02 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 19:56:55 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 20:02:52 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 20:36:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Chris Palmer (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 20:38:33 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 21:11:11 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 21:28:08 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 22:19:17 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Steven M. Bellovin (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 23:11:00 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 18:39:04 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 23:51:10 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 23:52:11 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 23:54:59 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 23:56:10 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 00:04:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 00:08:53 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 00:09:14 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 00:10:39 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 01:12:03 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators joshua sahala (Tue Apr 13 2004 - 22:13:39 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 02:35:56 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 03:33:20 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Andrew - Supernews (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 04:00:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Miquel van Smoorenburg (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 04:09:39 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:01:51 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:07:35 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:17:47 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:18:10 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:24:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Adrian Chadd (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:44:33 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Miquel van Smoorenburg (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:50:38 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 05:50:42 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 06:19:04 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 07:14:37 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Eric Brunner-Williams (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 02:35:29 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Robert E. Seastrom (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 08:11:12 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators (no email) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 08:51:03 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators (no email) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 08:55:56 EDT)
• Routing issues Simon Brilus (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 08:58:20 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:35:48 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:46:29 EDT)
• Re: Routing issues Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:53:15 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:58:59 EDT)
• Re: Routing issues Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:59:49 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 09:59:53 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:00:16 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:07:30 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:18:49 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Dr. Jeffrey Race (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:26:10 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:31:02 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:40:19 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:45:38 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joe Maimon (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:58:55 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Daniel Senie (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:03:26 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:12:57 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:14:26 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:42:56 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Joel Jaeggli (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:06:23 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:05:56 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators JC Dill (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:45:40 EDT)
• Re: Routing issues Nick Feamster (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:04:51 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:39:28 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:47:16 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Crist Clark (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:52:30 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Vivien M. (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 13:04:33 EDT)
• Can someone at Hotmail Mail/Spam contact me off list please Nicole (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 15:08:28 EDT)
• SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking William R. Lorenz (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:17:08 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Burton, Chris (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:32:57 EDT)
• Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Dr. Jeffrey Race (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:39:51 EDT)
• Re: Anyone alive at ALTDB? Robert E. Seastrom (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:47:52 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:59:33 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 15:25:45 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Dr. Jeffrey Race (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 15:34:34 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators JC Dill (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 15:16:46 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Jay Hennigan (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 16:02:28 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 16:08:03 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 16:24:53 EDT)
• Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Robert E. Seastrom (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 17:11:28 EDT)
• Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking John Curran (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 17:37:06 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Dr. Jeffrey Race (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 17:44:29 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 18:00:55 EDT)
• Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Steve Linford (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 18:16:19 EDT)
• who not ARIN for route registry? Jeff Behl (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 18:32:36 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 18:54:50 EDT)
• Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Geo. (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 19:59:51 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 20:45:13 EDT)
• Re: Packet anonymity is the problem? Patrick W.Gilmore (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 00:11:25 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Patrick W.Gilmore (Sun Apr 11 2004 - 20:11:03 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Patrick W.Gilmore (Mon Apr 12 2004 - 08:40:58 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 21:21:00 EDT)
• Delayed mail [WAS: Packet anonymity is the problem?] Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 21:07:16 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Gary E. Miller (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 15:40:25 EDT)
• SORBS Insanity Jeremy Kister (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 23:09:27 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity (no name) (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 23:38:09 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Jeff Kell (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 00:19:18 EDT)
• RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Gary E. Miller (Wed Apr 14 2004 - 22:48:49 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 03:10:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 04:52:29 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Matthew Sullivan (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 08:21:04 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Matthew Sullivan (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 08:30:13 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Joe Maimon (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 09:02:47 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Matthew Sullivan (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 09:19:52 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity (no name) (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 09:30:56 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators John Payne (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 11:35:48 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 14:53:20 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 14:58:11 EDT)
• Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking Peter Galbavy (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 15:40:47 EDT)
• Re: TTY phone fraud and abuse Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 15:57:57 EDT)
• Gambling on power: Learning lessons Sean Donelan (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 16:41:23 EDT)
• Re: SORBS Insanity Matthew Sullivan (Thu Apr 15 2004 - 18:30:07 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 02:47:35 EDT)
• NSP-SEC BOF CFP Danny McPherson (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 03:39:53 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Pekka Savola (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 03:42:18 EDT)
• The Cidr Report (no name) (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 08:00:00 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 08:38:59 EDT)
• Re: NSP-SEC BOF CFP Susan Harris (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 09:38:30 EDT)
• Monitoring dark address space? David A.Ulevitch (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 10:06:28 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 11:13:37 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 11:45:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 12:18:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 12:37:48 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Niels Bakker (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 12:44:05 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 13:42:55 EDT)
• google. Micah McNelly (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 18:08:27 EDT)
• Re: google. Dan Hollis (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 19:15:52 EDT)
• Re: google. Mike Lewinski (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 19:29:33 EDT)
• Re: google. Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 19:55:47 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Fri Apr 16 2004 - 22:26:54 EDT)
• Re: Monitoring dark address space? Paul Vixie (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 00:06:18 EDT)
• Re: Monitoring dark address space? Andrew - Supernews (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 05:42:49 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Rob Nelson (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 11:26:13 EDT)
• IDDB: Companion Domains Database to IADB (and IADB Update) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 12:22:40 EDT)
• Re: Monitoring dark address space? Hank Nussbacher (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 15:30:58 EDT)
• Re: Anyone alive at ALTDB? Jason Lixfeld (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 14:48:31 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) (no name) (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 16:06:06 EDT)
• Re: Anyone alive at ALTDB? Joe Abley (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 17:58:59 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Steve Linford (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:21:10 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:34:52 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Rob Nelson (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:39:36 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 19:10:06 EDT)
• Re: Anyone alive at ALTDB? Steve Rubin (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 20:32:26 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 20:42:45 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Doug White (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 22:42:28 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 22:48:55 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT John Curran (Sat Apr 17 2004 - 23:24:32 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 01:44:38 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 02:13:35 EDT)
• Re: Monitoring dark address space? Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 02:32:59 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 02:56:45 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 04:32:16 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 05:06:59 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Petri Helenius (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 06:11:13 EDT)
• RE: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 08:15:52 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Alex Bligh (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 08:23:40 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators John Curran (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 10:53:08 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 10:53:24 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 10:55:04 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 11:05:40 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 12:11:22 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Patrick W.Gilmore (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 06:16:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 12:33:18 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 12:41:22 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 13:06:30 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Jerry Eyers (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 14:01:45 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Lou Katz (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 14:33:25 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Dr. Jeffrey Race (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 14:41:06 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Dr. Jeffrey Race (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 14:59:40 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators (no name) (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 15:11:49 EDT)
• RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 16:33:41 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Jakma (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 17:15:06 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 17:25:17 EDT)
• flat ascii, please Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 19:16:24 EDT)
• RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators william(at)elan.net (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 20:29:33 EDT)
• RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 19:39:44 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 20:03:04 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 20:46:40 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Rodney Joffe (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 21:16:42 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Doug White (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 21:47:10 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:39:49 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Doug White (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:03:38 EDT)
• Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Sean Donelan (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:16:36 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Matt Hess (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:09:04 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Michel Py (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:36:52 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brandon Shiers (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:40:14 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Matt Hess (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:40:32 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:55:33 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Patrick W.Gilmore (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 00:25:07 EDT)
• Blocking Win95 hosts [WAS: Lazy network operators - NOT] Patrick W.Gilmore (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 00:03:29 EDT)
• SANOG IV, Kathmandu, Nepal, 23-30 July 2004 Joe Abley (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 00:30:20 EDT)
• Re: SANOG IV, Kathmandu, Nepal, 23-30 July 2004 Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 00:48:00 EDT)
• RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Michel Py (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 01:14:21 EDT)
• Re: Blocking Win95 hosts [WAS: Lazy network operators - NOT] Matt Hess (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 01:28:32 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Petri Helenius (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 01:50:34 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Henry Yen (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 02:14:54 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Petri Helenius (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 02:48:24 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Peter Galbavy (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 03:25:39 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 03:25:00 EDT)
• Fingerprints (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Sean Donelan (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 03:29:50 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Michael Painter (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 04:10:45 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 05:16:03 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Chris Brenton (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 06:12:16 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brian Russo (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 06:27:24 EDT)
• Automated Copyright Notice System Sean Donelan (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 07:29:37 EDT)
• Re: Automated Copyright Notice System Dan Hollis (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 07:50:56 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Chris Brenton (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 08:22:48 EDT)
• Re: Automated Copyright Notice System Bogdan SURDU (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 08:29:41 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Dr. Jeffrey Race (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:10:32 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Gregh (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:22:17 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:43:56 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 10:07:43 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Carlos Friacas (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 10:15:32 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brian Russo (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 10:51:18 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brian Russo (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:00:33 EDT)
• remote reboot power strips Christopher J. Wolff (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:24:29 EDT)
• Re: remote reboot power strips Will Yardley (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:51:29 EDT)
• RE: remote reboot power strips Christopher J. Wolff (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:54:31 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) (no name) (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:54:53 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Vivien M. (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 11:23:21 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Patrick W.Gilmore (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 12:26:14 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Patrick W.Gilmore (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 12:37:05 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 12:45:02 EDT)
• RE: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Eric Krichbaum (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 12:53:45 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) David Schwartz (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 12:57:07 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) John Neiberger (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:00:53 EDT)
• Re: remote reboot power strips Michael Loftis (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:06:22 EDT)
• RE: remote reboot power strips Roy (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:10:57 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Drew Weaver (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:42:53 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Geo. (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:19:00 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:39:10 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Jonathan M. Slivko (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 13:57:43 EDT)
• RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Vivien M. (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 14:06:50 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 14:27:14 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Dan Hollis (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:03:32 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) John Osmon (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:34:37 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT (no name) (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:21:09 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) (no name) (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:39:51 EDT)
• RE: remote reboot power strips just me (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:43:58 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Robert Boyle (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:44:01 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) just me (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 15:45:19 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) (no name) (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:04:54 EDT)
• Re: remote reboot power strips Cemil Degirmenci (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:09:56 EDT)
• Re: remote reboot power strips D'Arcy J.M. Cain (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:25:54 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Joe Abley (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:28:15 EDT)
• Ad blocking with squid Paul Khavkine (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:33:49 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid John Kinsella (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:44:54 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid Jason Dixon (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:45:40 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid Paul Khavkine (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 16:55:32 EDT)
• Responsibility: user or OS? (Re: Microsoft XP SP2) E.B. Dreger (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 17:21:43 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid Duane Wessels (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 17:33:18 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid Paul Khavkine (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 17:39:23 EDT)
• Re: Anyone from AT&T here? (AT&T bogus DNSBL answers) Paul Vixie (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 17:41:54 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 18:03:57 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Paul Vixie (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 18:16:58 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 18:37:43 EDT)
• Topics for SF Susan Harris (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 20:55:47 EDT)
• Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Gordon Cook (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 21:17:43 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) John Kristoff (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 21:20:23 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Michel Py (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 22:45:46 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Scott Weeks (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 23:07:45 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Dr. Jeffrey Race (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 23:16:40 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Scott Weeks (Mon Apr 19 2004 - 23:53:45 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Gregh (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 00:02:21 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 00:03:43 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Dr. Jeffrey Race (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:14:01 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Paul Vixie (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:15:48 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Mikael Abrahamsson (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:23:25 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Michel Py (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:34:55 EDT)
• Re: remote reboot power strips Alexei Roudnev (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:50:00 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Alexei Roudnev (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:51:20 EDT)
• Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Alexei Roudnev (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 01:53:43 EDT)
• Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 02:06:41 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Adrian Chadd (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 02:20:22 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Alexei Roudnev (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 02:21:56 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) James Edwards (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 03:09:23 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 03:12:26 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Gary Hale (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 08:45:03 EDT)
• RE: remote reboot power strips Cheung, Rick (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 08:59:19 EDT)
• The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Adi Linden (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 10:21:02 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 10:32:50 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 10:35:40 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit vijay gill (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 11:08:21 EDT)
• Re: The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Dr. Jeffrey Race (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 11:26:19 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 11:52:16 EDT)
• Re: The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Adi Linden (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 12:00:45 EDT)
• Re: The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Doug White (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 12:40:34 EDT)
• Re: The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Scott McGrath (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:13:36 EDT)
• hotmail issues Mark Jeftovic (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:32:18 EDT)
• TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Mike Tancsa (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:36:09 EDT)
• TCP vulnerability Grant A. Kirkwood (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:36:48 EDT)
• TCP Vulnerability makes case for authenticated BGP tad pedley (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:49:51 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Aviva Garrett (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 13:59:52 EDT)
• Re: TCP Vulnerability makes case for authenticated BGP Pekka Savola (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:09:15 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:10:06 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Stephen J. Wilcox (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:15:37 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Steven Champeon (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:15:33 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Gary Hale (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:17:43 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) James (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:54:16 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Owen DeLong (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 14:58:13 EDT)
• re: TCP vulnerability Allison Mankin (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:04:09 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Dan Hollis (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:08:35 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:10:07 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Stephen J. Wilcox (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:24:02 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) James (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:29:20 EDT)
• IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Blaine Christian (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:29:29 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:38:28 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:40:38 EDT)
• Re: hotmail issues J.D. Falk (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:29:08 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:32:14 EDT)
• Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Rodney Joffe (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:44:44 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Crist Clark (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:44:58 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) (no name) (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:49:01 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Gary Hale (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:52:20 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability McBurnett, Jim (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:57:53 EDT)
• Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Richard A Steenbergen (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:09:16 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Dan Hollis (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:11:02 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:16:37 EDT)
• Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability  John Brown (CV) (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:30:30 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) vijay gill (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:37:52 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Randy Bush (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:37:00 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Rodney Joffe (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:42:07 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) vijay gill (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:45:01 EDT)
• Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Sean Donelan (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:45:00 EDT)
• Re: Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Andy Dills (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:51:11 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) vijay gill (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:55:20 EDT)
• Cisco Security Advisory: Vulnerabilities in SNMP Message Processing Cisco Systems Product Security Incident Response Team (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:30:00 EDT)
• Re: Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Richard A Steenbergen (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:48:29 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:02:48 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Crist Clark (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:09:59 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Dan Hollis (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:18:22 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Stephen Stuart (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:17:50 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Paul Vixie (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:21:54 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:37:31 EDT)
• Re: TCP vulnerability Tom (UnitedLayer) (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:04:59 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 19:24:37 EDT)
• Nmap to print out the MAC addresses of scanned hosts Cemil Degirmenci (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 19:58:15 EDT)
• Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Mike Tancsa (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 21:23:46 EDT)
• Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 21:37:18 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Joe Rhett (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:06:52 EDT)
• TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:09:31 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:29:34 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Michel Py (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:38:07 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:49:21 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Rob Thomas (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:11:28 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Rob Thomas (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:17:19 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Joe Abley (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:19:44 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:21:08 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Patrick W.Gilmore (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 23:40:25 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Christopher L. Morrow (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:26:38 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:51:06 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:56:18 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Joe Rhett (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:58:53 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:32:40 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Rodney Joffe (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 01:01:52 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Christopher L. Morrow (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 01:11:15 EDT)
• Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 01:42:43 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 01:21:52 EDT)
• Re: Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability (no name) (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:53:26 EDT)
• RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 01:49:44 EDT)
• Alternatives to MD5 [Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability] Pekka Savola (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 02:25:14 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 06:40:08 EDT)
• Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Sun Apr 18 2004 - 06:37:40 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 16:31:42 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 02:36:08 EDT)
• Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 02:47:16 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Christopher L. Morrow (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 02:56:33 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 03:08:54 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 03:26:34 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 03:56:17 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 04:15:56 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 04:21:27 EDT)
• BGP session reset in one packet [where a looking glass or route server is available] David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 04:38:44 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Dan Hollis (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 05:01:56 EDT)
• snmp vuln Mikael Abrahamsson (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 05:40:45 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability James (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 05:43:48 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Adam Rothschild (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 06:44:14 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 06:49:00 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 06:56:26 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 07:00:07 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Daniel Roesen (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 07:19:51 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 07:23:54 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Daniel Roesen (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 07:27:42 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 07:35:03 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 08:10:05 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Daniel Roesen (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 08:38:37 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 09:09:15 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Daniel Roesen (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 09:21:13 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 10:06:25 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 10:19:10 EDT)
• RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 10:35:27 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Jared Mauch (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 10:38:33 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 10:45:46 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:11:57 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Adam Rothschild (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:13:26 EDT)
• RE: Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability (fwd) Peering (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:14:55 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Peering (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:28:24 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Jared Mauch (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:30:48 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Robert E. Seastrom (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:36:41 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Todd Vierling (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:37:04 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid (no name) (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:56:24 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 12:07:39 EDT)
• RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Peering (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 12:15:39 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 12:37:39 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Aditya (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 12:42:18 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Christopher L. Morrow (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 13:04:57 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Pete Kruckenberg (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 13:42:39 EDT)
• Re: The Uneducated Enduser (Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)) Chris Palmer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 13:51:20 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Simon Lockhart (Tue Apr 20 2004 - 15:00:33 EDT)
• RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 14:32:07 EDT)
• RE: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Michel Py (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 14:38:09 EDT)
• Re: Ad blocking with squid Dan Hollis (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:07:21 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Paul Jakma (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:14:03 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Paul Jakma (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:17:09 EDT)
• Vendor TCP oops-es (was Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability) Todd Vierling (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:18:19 EDT)
• Re: TCP RST attack (the cause of all that MD5-o-rama) Patrick W.Gilmore (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:46:38 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:47:22 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Paul Jakma (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 16:00:55 EDT)
• Cisco Rolls Major Patches to TCP Flaw Henry Linneweh (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 18:55:15 EDT)
• Re: Vendor TCP oops-es (was Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 16:09:07 EDT)
• Re: Xspedius / E.Spire as wellRe: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Charles Sprickman (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 16:48:37 EDT)
• RE: tcp bgp vulnerability looking glass and route server issues. Lane Patterson (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 19:21:51 EDT)
• RE: tcp bgp vulnerability looking glass and route server issues. Burton, Chris (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 19:46:02 EDT)
• RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 20:06:15 EDT)
• RE: tcp bgp vulnerability looking glass and route server issues. David Luyer (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 20:10:17 EDT)
• Re: Cisco Rolls Major Patches to TCP Flaw Jeff Workman (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 20:59:09 EDT)
• Next Joint Meeting With ARIM Susan Harris (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:01:04 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think John Kristoff (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:51:23 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think E.B. Dreger (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 23:10:38 EDT)
• Re: tcp bgp vulnerability looking glass and route server issues. Troy Davis (Wed Apr 21 2004 - 23:37:45 EDT)
• asymmetric/peer RPF [RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think] Pekka Savola (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 00:51:36 EDT)
• Re: snmp vuln Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 02:24:28 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 02:37:01 EDT)
• Re: Ordering Windows Security Update CD (was Re: Microsoft XP SP2) Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 02:39:28 EDT)
• Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 02:43:38 EDT)
• RE: tcp bgp vulnerability looking glass and route server issues. Smith, Donald (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 02:53:25 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 03:14:55 EDT)
• Re: snmp vuln Saku Ytti (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 03:17:06 EDT)
• Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 03:25:19 EDT)
• Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Alexei Roudnev (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 03:34:35 EDT)
• Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 10:11:06 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Stephen J. Wilcox (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 10:18:40 EDT)
• RE: asymmetric/peer RPF [RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think] Michel Py (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 10:38:50 EDT)
• Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Niels Bakker (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 10:42:02 EDT)
• RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Michel Py (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 10:46:47 EDT)
• RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Blaine Christian (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 11:06:17 EDT)
• Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 11:07:38 EDT)
• RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 11:55:13 EDT)
• Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Thu Apr 22 2004 - 12:03:33 EDT)
• Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Crist Clark (Thu Apr 22 2