- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Conference Videocast
by Tony McGregor 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

The good folks at CityLink will be multicasting the talks from the conference tomorrow and Friday. So if you can't be here, check out www.r2.co.nz. There are pictures from today's sessions on the conference page. www.nznog.org. Tony ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony McGregor Mail: T.McGregor(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz Department of Computer Science Phone: +64 7 838 4651 Waikato University Fax: +64 7 858 5095(w) +64 7 825 5047(h) Private Bag 3105 Home: +64 7 825 5040 mobile: (021)313004 Hamilton, New Zealand www: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~tonym ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 9

Recent worm infestations
by Juha Saarinen 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

For those who haven't noticed the flood of emailed viruses and bounces caused by the dictionary attack the new Windows worm(s) create(s), read and weep: http://www.kaspersky.com/news.html?id=3614506 http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/novarg.shtml Plus the usual AV sites. Looks like it's running amok in NZ. -- Juha

7 11

RE: [nznog] Conference Videocast
by Finnigan, Jamie (NZ - Wellington) 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

> We had 12 viewers a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure they weren't all > just Citylink staff wanting to see the light glinting off Carl's head > :-) I'm another .. but I'm only here for the fantastic music that gets played during intervals. :) Jamie -- CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make any use of its content unless that use is approved by Deloitte separately in writing. Any opinion, advice or information contained in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is to be treated as interim and provisional only and for the strictly limited purpose of the recipient as communicated to us. Neither the recipient nor any other person should act upon it without our separate written authorisation of reliance. Deloitte is a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is a Swiss Verein (association), and, as such, neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other's acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names "Deloitte," "Deloitte & Touche," "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu," or other related names. Services are provided by the member firms and not by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately and destroy this message. Thank you. Deloitte Internet: www.deloitte.co.nz

1 0

RE: [nznog] Conference Videocast
by Richards, David 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

Ah the sound is fixed now! Well done! -- David Richards, Senior Network Engineer IT Services Unit - 'Enabling people through technology' Christchurch City Council, New Zealand Phone: +64 3 941 8689 | Fax: +64 3 941 8989 | Mobile: +64 27 242 7689 email: David.Richards(a)ccc.govt.nz -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Curtis [mailto:jamie(a)pointless.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2004 15:29 To: nznog(a)nznog.org Subject: Re: [nznog] Conference Videocast > And only if RIch can get from AKL to HAM in time to get everyuthing set up > and a public IP is available, etc. We also have minor logistics issues of > getting the van close enough, running a lot of cables, power, etc. > > If everything goes OK, there MAY be 3 cameras (and operators) as well as a > scan converter on the inevitable power point thingies. After a bit of playing around Rich and Simon seem to have got it all working. The streams are all available from: http://www.r2.co.nz/20040129/ We are currently trying to work on clearing up the sound but otherwise all is going well. Thanks heaps to Rich and all the Citylink guys for making this happen. All the captures are also being recorded and may be available later. Cheers, Jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog ********************************************************************** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz **********************************************************************

1 0

Open Discussion at BGP'04
by Donald Neal 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

NZNOG People, The last item on the programme (http://www.nznog.org/programme.php) for the conference now getting under way is "Open Discussion". This isn't a BOF. I intend to use this session to ask for feedback from attendees on a number of issues. For a start, I plan to ask for comments on the conference then concluding - what went well, what could be improved. I also intend to try to have those present agree a committee to handle NZNOG's part of the organisation of the next conference, and to ask whether those assembled have any shared views about that conference - where, when, how much beer Roger should pay for. In seeking to do this, I'm assuming that NZNOG will remain a loose association and not a formally-organised society. That's an assumption with which people are welcome to disagree. I'd welcome email directly to me by Thursday night from people planning to attend the conference if there's any other issue they'd like discussed then. If there are a lot of topics people want discussed I'll put together a formal agenda. If you're not planning to attend that session but would be willing to help in NZNOG's part of conference organisation, please also get back to me by Thursday night. I'm also on the lookout for at least one more person to act as administrator for this mailing list. The last time this was discussed on this list a number of names were mentioned, but there seemed to me little sign of a coherent view. Again, if you're interested in taking on that role (or have strong views on who should or should not have that role) but won't be at Friday's session, please email me directly by Thursday night. Donald Neal | "Fiasco - an unsuccessful Technical Specialist | wall painting." Operations Engineering | Integration & Services Divn. | - Sandi Toksvig Alcatel NZ Ltd | All opinions mine only. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Determining International vs Local
by Cleave Pokotea 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

Hello, Just looking for some clarification from the group regarding International versus Local traffic identification (sorry for the uneducated queries): Traditionally circuit switched voice calls are carried via a dedicated end-to-end circuit (or virtual circuit) that the switching system sets up for the purpose of each call. The originating carrier bills the customer originating the call (the collection charge) and is billed by the terminating carrie for completing the call (the accounting rate). Therefore calls are easily distinguished between point A (local) and point B (international). With IP traffic(packet switched) an Internet message is broken down into many packets that may be individually routed over many different networks to arrive at the endpoint where they are reassembled into their original, coherent message. Individual messages therefore do not occupy a defined circuit for a defined time. So, how is International traffic differentiated from local traffic in NZ? How do ISP's deterine what traffic has originate locally? I am assuming there are two main methods of Inter-connection used in NZ; 1. Sats, 2. Southern Cross (?) cable. Is traffic classified (?) at the main entry points or are ISP's classifiying traffic via IP ranges (The dotted quad ranges seem's a rather ad-hoc method) and / or other methods? thanks, C. Resource Development Analyst Digital Initiatives Unit Te Puna Mataurange o Aotearoa National Library of New Zealand Wellington

4 3

.com.au domains
by Dan Clark 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

Hi Guys, Where does one register a .com.au domain nice and cheap inside New Zealand? Or do we have to go via Optus in Aussie? Kind Regards Dan Clark Network Manager Scarfies.Net Ltd

5 5

RE: .com.au domains
by Dominic O'Hare 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

If you are already incorporated in New Zealand, you can register an ABN at - http://www.abr.gov.au as an other incorporated entity. There are no filing or registration fees to register an ABN and you do not need an Australian street address. When filing an ABN make sure your company name and desired domain name are registered as trading names. Be aware the Australian Business Registry are terribly slow at creating new numbers, be sure to send them your NZ certificate of incorporation. Yours Sincerely, Dominic O'Hare ENERGISERVE.COM 502 S. Harbor Blvd Fullerton, CA 92382

1 0

RE: [nznog] .com.au domains
by mark.harris＠ssc.govt.nz 25 Jan '04

25 Jan '04

If they are Australian companies, they should already have an ABN (and you will be registering it on their behalf and in their name). It may be easier for them to register it themselves. Cheers Mark Harris Manager Moderation and Web Standards State Services Commission PO Box 329, Wellington, NZ Tel: 64 4 495 2844 Email: moderator(a)ssc.govt.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Clark [mailto:dan(a)scarfies.net] > Sent: 26 January 2004 11:45 > To: Peter Mott; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] .com.au domains > > > one of the issues I am having is it would appear you have to have an > Australian business number to be able to register the domain *.com.au? > The reason we are trying to register this kind of domain is a > couple of > customers are based in Aussie and dont like the fact that .nz > means we can > do it better than them :P > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Mott" <peter.mott(a)2day.com> > To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:41 AM > Subject: Re: [nznog] .com.au domains > > > > Mike Cooper wrote: > > > > > www.domainz.net.nz > > > > nice and cheap? > > > > <cough> > > > > > > -- > > Peter Mott > > Chief Enthusiast > > 2DAY INTERNET LIMITED > > http://www.2day.com > > > > "Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish > something!" > > Thomas A Edison > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >

1 0

Re: [nznog] New Spam Killing Technique
by Ewen McNeill 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

In message <011d01c3e2ca$1b0bdfa0$030d010a(a)doc>, James Spooner writes: >My Point here was that spammers will no longer be able to send from >a hotmail/yahoo/aol/etc address using an arbitrary open SMTP relay, >which means they will have a harder time maintaining anonymity. The obvious counter to that -- which I'd assume even spammers could figure out -- is to register a new domain for each spam run through a given open relay. Then they can even put in the SPF records for that relay. This raises the spammers cost, oh, about US$8. It might be enough to cut out the less profitable spammers -- after all it's probably doubling their overheads -- but I imagine all the bigger ones will just keep right on at it. And they can easily register the domain with "anonymous" details. Sure it might eventually get pulled for not having valid details; but by that time it's served its purpose and can be removed anyway. SPF does seem to be a useful step though, as it'll reduce the number of "joe jobs". And hopefully also encourage more people to set up SMTP AUTH and the like. Ewen

3 2