Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 12 Feb 2012 11:36:57 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:44:13AM -0500, Vinny Abello wrote: > All recent email clients I've come across give you anti-phishing > warnings in one way 12 Feb 2012 10:19:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149781 >>What is truly evil is non text/plain email. > >Have we fallen through a time warp into 1996? Evidently yes. Look, it's a known-not-to-work SMTP ca 12 Feb 2012 10:06:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149780 > The DNS "industry" is putting us a long way from when RFC 2826 was written. That's true, but you can't just blow off the majority of people in the 12 Feb 2012 09:40:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149779 The DNS "industry" is putting us a long way from when RFC 2826 was written. Christian On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:31, John Levine wrote: >> Nice. Basi 12 Feb 2012 09:23:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149778 >What is truly evil is non text/plain email. Have we fallen through a time warp into 1996? R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Prima 12 Feb 2012 08:52:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149777 In article <20120210213755.GA88812@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> writes >Hypothetically, I get an e-mail from ripe.ca Or f 12 Feb 2012 07:30:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149776 On 2/11/2012 4:37 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: >> Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This >> plain text email you sent comes acro 12 Feb 2012 01:44:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149775 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Doesn't actually matter, because the .ua registry isn't allowing Greek Gamma > or Latin-E-with-diaresis, in domain n 11 Feb 2012 23:59:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149774 On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any 11 Feb 2012 23:16:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149773 On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on > any computer out there, excell 11 Feb 2012 22:57:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149772 On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: >> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.e 11 Feb 2012 21:45:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149771 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >> (and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any >> language out there- in the first 7 bi 11 Feb 2012 21:25:05 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149770 On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > (The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle 11 Feb 2012 21:13:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149769 Neil Harris wrote: > I'm not a flag-waver for IDN, so much as a proponent of ways to make IDN > safer, given that it already exists. It's like tryin 11 Feb 2012 21:07:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149768 On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:47:24 GMT, Sven Olaf Kamphuis said: > (and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any > language ou 11 Feb 2012 20:39:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149767 as if it wasn't annoying enough already that some n00bs are using URI's with characters you can't type in (and in most cases don't even display corr 11 Feb 2012 19:47:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149766 yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on any computer out there, excellent idea, devide and conquerer, i wonder who ca 11 Feb 2012 19:34:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149765 On 12/02/12 00:09, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Neil Harris wrote: > >> Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see >> >> http://www.mo 11 Feb 2012 17:34:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149764 >Nice. Basically, unless the TLD registrar has a public policy that basically says >"We don't allow names with cyrillic C to collide with MICROSOFT", 11 Feb 2012 17:31:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149763 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > (The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle. They *do* in fact > allow "U+0441 Cyrillic Small Letter ES" 11 Feb 2012 17:25:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149762 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: You know, clickable objects in automated business communications are a 11 Feb 2012 16:10:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149761 Neil Harris wrote: > Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see > > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-li 11 Feb 2012 16:09:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149760 On 2/11/2012 4:50 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US > using HTTPS on a non-standard port 11 Feb 2012 14:56:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149759 FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US using HTTPS on a non-standard port (9999). It appears that the Iranian government 11 Feb 2012 13:50:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149758 > Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This plain text > email you sent comes across with clickable mailto and http links in yo 11 Feb 2012 13:37:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149757