Reflections on the amount of mail

Tue Feb 18 00:33:15 UTC 1997

  Greetings:

  For those interested in filters, and running procmail, I freely
  give to the Internet community:

	:0:
	* ^From:.*JimFleming.*
	/dev/null

  Now, in payment for my fine gift, please indulge me, and repeat
  this mantra three times, in hope that it may guide your fingers at
  the MUA:

  	Is this message I am sending to NANOG really related
  	to <L4 issues and important enough to occupy their
  	mailboxes?

  Thanks!

  -alan

> 
> On Monday, February 17, 1997 6:02 PM, Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry at piermont.com] wrote:
> @ 
> @ Jim Fleming writes:
> @ > On Monday, February 17, 1997 2:27 PM, Perry E.
Metzger[SMTP:perry at piermont.co
> @ m] wrote:
> @ > @ 
> @ > @ Jim Fleming writes:
> @ > @ > Someone claimed that they could not access the public
> @ > @ > Root Name Server operated by Paul Vixie and supported
> @ > @ > by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation
> @ > @ 
> @ > @ No one claimed that but you.
> @ > 
> @ > Here is the original mail....from matthew kaufman
> @ 
> @ Creative editing of your original claim that Paul Vixie was
> @ "filtering" access to the name servers.
> @ 
> @ Of course there are times where you can't reach one nameserver or
> @ another. Connections between any two points on the network are not
> @ 100% reliable. How you could twist this into the notion that 
> @ Paul Vixie was filtering connections in the network is probably a
> @ question more for your psychiatrist than for you.
> @ 
> @ Perry
> @ 
> @ 
> 
> Per the following Paul has admitted that he does
> a small amount of filtering...he has not said why.
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@
> ----------
> From: 	Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul at vix.com]
> Sent: 	Monday, February 17, 1997 12:02 PM
> To: 	'nanog at merit.edu'
> Subject: 	Re: F means filtered ? 
> 
> > If someone was to attempt a denial of service attact against
> > F.root-servers.net I certainly hope Paul would filter the originating
> > network to protect nameservice for the other 99.5% of the Internet.
> 
> Actually it would be 99.95% not 99.5%.
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> 
> I think the main issue is if ISPs and network operators
> are going to rely on TRUE Root Name Servers for
> a reliable Internet then those servers should probably
> be handled by people who are not just volunteers.
> 
> The Internet has grown from the days when people
> installed modems in their basements and waited
> for the phones to ring. The U.S. Government via
> the NSF/InterNIC is helping to back a serious
> telecommunications network.
> 
> I think that most people on the NANOG mailing
> list understand these issues. They are more
> than capable of judging which Root Name Servers
> they use for their operations. In fact, many serious
> shops now run their own TRUE Root Name Servers
> to provide better service and better stability.
> 
> The IANA and Network Solutions, Inc. are trying
> to move to the TRUE Root Name Server configuration
> that others have proven works and some experts
> claimed would fail. I am somewhat surprised that
> more NANOG members are not at the leading
> edge of these developments. Such is life.
> 
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> 
> e-mail:
> JimFleming at unety.net
> JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)
> 

-- 
Alan Hannan
Not Employed Networking, Ltd.
email: alan at mindvision.com.
phone: 402/488-0238