Spamcop

Tue May 11 18:51:10 UTC 2004

Hi there,

Just wondering why was my e-mail thread (Hierarchical Credit-based 
Queuing (HCQ): QoS) dated 5/9/2004 9:36 PM reported as a spam? Just 
trying to understand so that I don't repeat it. Below is a cut and paste 
of the reported incident.

Please advice.

regards,
/vicky

---- cut here ------

Return-Path: <988145978 at bounces.spamcop.net>
Received: from vamx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.28.193.148]) by
acme-reston.va.rr.com
           (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
           ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com
           for <abuse at rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:42:14 -0400
Received: from vmx2.spamcop.net (vmx2.spamcop.net [206.14.107.117])
	by vamx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id
i4AEkwhn017175
	for <abuse at rr.com>; Mon, 10 May 2004 10:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sc-app3.verio.ironport.com (HELO spamcop.net)
(192.168.11.203)
   by vmx2.spamcop.net with SMTP; 10 May 2004 07:47:00 -0700
Received: from [68.13.211.63] by spamcop.net
	with HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 14:47:01 GMT
From: 988145978 at reports.spamcop.net
To: abuse at rr.com
Subject: [SpamCop (24.30.181.126) id:988145978]Hierarchical Credit-based
Queuing (HCQ): QoS
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <rid_988145978 at msgid.spamcop.net>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-SpamCop-sourceip: 24.30.181.126
X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.0.3705)
	via http://www.spamcop.net/ v1.3.4
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine

[ SpamCop V1.3.4 ]
This message is brief for your comfort.  Please use links below for
details.

Email from 24.30.181.126 / Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z988145978zab5cec781dcfa15ae459c11bd03b7bef
z

[ Offending message ]
Return-path: <owner-x>
Envelope-to: x
Delivery-date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400
Received: from [198.108.1.26] (helo=trapdoor.merit.edu)
	by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1BN2ZP-000Jo6-00
	for x; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix)
	id B68EC91206; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: x
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56)
	id 8645591243; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: x
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41])
	by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AFD91206
	for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix)
	id 3B3955914F; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: x
Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com
(ms-smtp-02-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.134])
	by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB7358E5D
	for <x>; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.2] (cpe-24-30-181-126.socal.rr.com
[24.30.181.126])
	by ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id
i4A4aUce025659
	for <x>; Sun, 9 May 2004 21:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <409F________0602 at socal.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:36:41 -0700
From: Vicky Rode <vickyr at socal.rr.com>
Reply-To: vickyr at socal.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: x
Subject: Hierarchical Credit-based Queuing (HCQ): QoS
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Sender: owner-x
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing at merit.edu
X-Loop: nanog

Hi there,

Just wondering if anyone out there has either implemented or looked into

this queuing method for quality of service implementation.
This solution is offered (hardware solution) and patented by
foursticks.com. According to foursticks, "HCQ achieves the efficiency
and flexibility of first generation queuing systems, without the
disadvantages."

It compares HCQ (interesting reading) w/ Class-Based Queuing (CBQ),
Random Early Discard (RED) and Weighted Random Early Discard
(WRED),Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ),Priority Queuing (PQ) & Low Latency
Queuing (LLQ).

Also can anyone recommend a qos forum which I can ping as well.

Any insight will be appreciated.

regards,
/vicky