- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

ISC F root nameserver node live at APE
by Joe Abley 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

APE Peering People, Internet Software Consortium has a node of the F root nameserver at the APE in Auckland. Networks connected to the APE can gain access to this node by peering with it across the exchange, as follows: APE addresses: 192.203.154.98, 192.203.154.99 AS number: 23710 NOC phone: +1 650 423 1310 INOC DBA: 3557 NOC e-mail: noc(a)isc.org The APE path to F will also be available through the APE route servers. Networks peering locally with F gain lower transport latency and increased path diversity to the F root nameserver, which helps make the DNS as a whole more reliable. ISC operates an open peering policy. To set up a session please send e-mail to peering(a)isc.org. The F root nameserver node in Auckland advertises the single prefix 192.5.5.0/24 to peers which covers the address of f.root-servers.net. For further details of the general routing policy for F, together with a summary of remote F-root nodes deployed at other exchange points, see: http://www.isc.org/peering/ A representation of the policy for the F-Root node in Auckland is present in the IRR. The Auckland F root nameserver node was made possible by Juniper Networks, TelstraClear, FX Networks and 2day.com. Joe

2 1

usenet.net.nz offline.
by Simon Lyall 10 Jul '03

10 Jul '03

Just a quick FYI but usenet.net.nz is currently offline due to dodgy hardware, this means that the noc contact list, ape website and my looking glass (onlong with random other stuff) is offline. I'll kick the box tomorrow and I have a replacement machine ready, hopefully I'll have a chance to config it up in the next couple of days. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

1 0

Anyone thinking about WiMAX?
by Juha Saarinen 09 Jul '03

09 Jul '03

www.wimaxforum.org Roundabout 50km reach, with 70Mbps max rate. -- Juha Saarinen

2 1

legal threats from DE Technologies re web commerce
by Robert Hunt 09 Jul '03

09 Jul '03

James & Wells NZ Barristers and Solicitors (http://www.jaws.co.nz) are acting for DE Technologies ( http://www.detechnologies.com ) DE Technologies are described at http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/GAMArticleHTMLTemplate?tf=globetechn… as "a tiny company in Montreal" and the patent as "a computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction." I hope this is not seen as off topic. I am at a loss to say whether this is an absurdity or a significant worry, but my firm has recently received a legal fax from James & Wells claiming we are infringing DE Technologies recently acquired NZ Patent. In what looks like a mass produced demand they appear to require that we "discuss" obtaining a license for three years for US $25,000 plus 1.15% of our and our customers' transactions, if we wish to continue hosting web sites that take international orders. The NZ version of the patent was obtained earlier this year. Curiously the target of their attention happens to be a website of ours that does not do actual orders itself but is just a portal, hence my guess that this is part of an broad initial salvo in an attempt to create the "pay up and avoid litigation" response. I want to make contact with other operations who have received a license and royalty demand under NZ Patent 505284 for large sums of money if they wish to continue using basic international web shopping practices. We can probably deflect the particular letter we have received, however if the barristers involved are keen to search out sites that do have some chance of coming under the patent then they should find a virtual cornucopia, as they traverse the sites of your customers and ours. Supposing they succeed in upholding their patent then their requirements would claim a significant percentage of overheads of net traders looking to continue having international ordering/transaction capabilities. Obviously I am sorely disappointed that the NZ Patent Office is granting patents of this kind, and am reviewing both political and legal options for raising this issue in the public eye. Alongside Microsoft's moves to patent .Net APIs we are of course, seeing some serious challenges to developer freedoms, and end user's integration choices, if the arena of intellectual patents is not balanced with concern for open standards in at least some of the world. Well that is off topic now I am sure... I am happy to set up a list for discussing this issue if anyone else is interested, let me know or point me to a pre-existing nz list on this matter. Oh and I'll let you know when I have a patent on the process of running an online charity auction to save ISPs sued by patent attorney's.. :) regards Robert -- Robert Hunt phone +64-3-3645888 Managing Director fax +64-3-3645828 Plain Communications roberth(a)plain.co.nz

7 9

Effective RBL's
by Matthew G Brown 09 Jul '03

09 Jul '03

Does anyone have experience with good RBL's . A client is running Mdaemon and looking to increase the level of SPAM protection. By Default its running relays.osirussoft.com, relays.ordb.com & bl.spamcop.net Anyone have any others that function well ? Best Regards Matthew G Brown Managing Director B & R Holdings LIMITED Nelson, New Zealand Ph: 027 4807731 Http://www.brh.co.nz

5 5

Re: [nznog] Xtra supporting Address harvesting and prompting customers to embed HTML in their e-mail ?
by Malcolm Lockyer 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

>From: Steve Phillips <steve(a)focb.co.nz> >To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >Subject: [nznog] Xtra supporting Address harvesting and prompting customers >to embed HTML in their e-mail ? >Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:33:39 +1200 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >*sigh* <quote> To turn on HTML in your Outlook/Outlook Express On the Tools menu, click Options, and then click the Mail Format tab if on Outlook or the Send tab if on Outlook Express. </quote> (read: turn on the vulnerabilities) Its disturbing to see big companies trying to undo all our customer educating (read: using a cluestick) - it doesn't even meantion why us big government/IT Department/whatever types (read: those of us with a cluestick) don't like HTML mail..! I'd like to see anybody that can figure out how to apply the new crimes bill to spammers - to also use it against companies with pages like this to sort it out - <quote>Start getting everyone's email address now - in every way you can. </quote> *sigh* back to reality. // gets out the flameproof jacket ;) m > >http://xtramsn.co.nz/business/0,,10271-2468719,00.html > >No wonder we have such problems with spam and e-mail worms... > >-- >Steve. > >_______________________________________________ >Nznog mailing list >Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _________________________________________________________________ Check out the Xtra gaming servers at http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming !

1 0

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Ewen McNeill 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

In message <5.2.0.9.0.20030709102145.00b81700(a)pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Nayl or writes: >Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-multicast. I agree its the most efficient >way of distributing a synchronous event. Its just I don't see a lot of >synchronous events...... Which brings me back to where I started -- with a bit of relaxation of the "I must see it NOW" requirement (in the order of a few seconds/minutes) and good client software/hardware, you can turn a bunch of not-quite-synchronous viewings into synchronous events. And thus snatch a multicast win, out of the jaws of a watch-now unicast defeat. This is both with "live" things -- which I agree aren't that common -- and also "near release time" viewings of things which aren't live (where you can expect that something which is recently released, and popular, is most likely to be wanted nearer the release time than later, in some sort of half-bell-curve type model). >Its just as the size of "live" viewer base gets smaller, and bandwidth >higher, multicasting doesn't seem worth the effort. Well I've seen approximately three orders of magnitude (powers of 10) drop in the cost of bandwidth/traffic over the last 10 years or so, and it's still at least two to three orders of magnitude away from the point where I'd be willing to say the "cost" of getting multicasting going isn't worth the value of the saved bandwidth. Generally like RAM space, harddrive space, etc, the uses will expand to fill all the available bandwidth, so using it inefficiently isn't exactly desireable. >If I stream an event for say 10 viewers, why should the rest of the >NZ net get it sent to them without asking for it. Umm, that's not how multicasting works (indeed it's the key difference between multicasting and broadcasting). But I think you know that already. Ewen

4 3

Xtra supporting Address harvesting and prompting customers to embed HTML in their e-mail ?
by Steve Phillips 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

*sigh* http://xtramsn.co.nz/business/0,,10271-2468719,00.html No wonder we have such problems with spam and e-mail worms... -- Steve.

1 0

Re: [nznog] legal threats from DE Technologies re web commerce
by David Farrar 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Robert Hunt wrote: > Obviously I am sorely disappointed that the NZ Patent > Office is granting patents of this kind, and am reviewing > both political and legal options for raising this issue in > the public eye. Alongside Microsoft's moves to patent > .Net APIs we are of course, seeing some serious challenges > to developer freedoms, and end user's integration choices, > if the arena of intellectual patents is not balanced with > concern for open standards in at least some of the world. > > Well that is off topic now I am sure... I am happy to > set up a list for discussing this issue if anyone else is > interested, let me know or point me to a pre-existing nz > list on this matter. The issue came up yesterday on InternetNZ's public-discuss list. Archives at http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/pipermail/public-discuss/2003-July/thre… and list at http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/public-discuss InternetNZ is considering engaging a QC who is an expert in the intellectual property arena to provide some initial advice on the situation which has arisen. No decision has been taken yet, but InternetNZ would be interested in hearing from anyone else who may be affected by this. At a minimum I am sure we will be happy to help co-ordinate information sharing. DPF (VP and Chair of Legal & Regulatory, InternetNZ)

1 0

Re: [nznog] Netsites Domain Name Changes page offline?
by Ewen McNeill 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307081250150.6688-100000(a)blue.darkmere.gen.nz>, Lin N ah writes: >On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Mark Davies wrote: >> [Mark's netsite changes list] >> I got asked on 1 July by Nick Griffin to not publish the changes list until >> some review I wasn't aware of that is apparently currently happening was >> completed. >> >Perhaps the DNC should explain to us why there is a problem with >Mark's excellent netsites page. The explanation I was given was that apparently some spammers had been trawling through the list of new domains to figure out what to look up to pick up a new collection of registrar/registrant/admin/technical contact addresses to spam. Apparently at least one spammer actually claimed to have used Mark's changes list as a source, which is presumably why the interium action was to ask for it to be taken down. As Steven Heath noted, there is a mention in the June Registrar newsletter; and it will be in the minutes from the June NZOC meeting which should be up RSN I'm told (apparently they were overlooked for a while in amongst everything else going on and now just need to be reviewed by NZOC for accuracy). And there should be some sort of call-for-comments coming out relatively soon (sometime in July?). >Is it doing any harm or is it because it isn't published by DNC and so >not sanctioned? Actually as I remember it Mark's site was one of the few that made it onto the original blessed list of those who could still do zone transfers when restrictions were put in place (a couple of years back). AFAICT it's merely the "source of addresses for spam" problem which makes it an issue, rather than "not run by the DNC". Ewen

2 1