Re: [cobalt-users] commercial list use (Re: [RaQ3] Need PHP package for original RaQ3...)

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JL> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:13:30 -0800
JL> From: Jeff Lasman


JL> I really don't remember what you're referring to, so I can't
JL> respond now.  If you had said something to me then, I would
JL> have been happy to respond then.  One of your clients told me
JL> you had a problem with me, but neither you nor he would tell
JL> me what it was, so I had no way to correct my behavior, if in
JL> fact correction was desirable/possible.  Now at least I have
JL> some indication.  Thanks.

Might you tell me off-list who?  I'm a bit puzzled by this, and
frankly don't recall you asking me about this...


JL> Our network at Inflow has never had instability issues.
JL>
JL> I understand there are possible security issues based on the lack of
JL> private networks to each colocation and rental-system client, and I
JL> understand your feelings about hosters having a private network for each
JL> client, perhaps for each systems.  Frankly, having considered the

Definitely for each client.  I have one client who ignored that
advice, had a colo client of theirs hacked, and all their
passwords sniffed, including admin ones.  (They were still using
telnet.)


JL> tradeoffs, I agree with you.  It wasn't our network (we've always shared
JL> space at Inflow) and we always told our clients they didn't have their
JL> own network.

Hence I said stability/security.  If someone mistakenly binds the
same IP as another system (including router or DNS), it creates a
race condition which brings things down.


JL> But we're now building a new network at a new location.  We'll soon have
JL> private networks for each of our systems.  The tradeoff is that it won't
JL> be as easy for our clients to add IP#s; once they've used all the IP#s
JL> in their network allocation we'll either have to replace their network
JL> with a larger one, or give them an additional network.

Yes, it's a pain. :-(


JL> In the meantime we continue to proactively monitor our current network
JL> to make sure that possible security issues don't become real ones.

This is good, but prevention is better.


JL> > Cool it.
JL>
JL> I'm in compliance with the last posted set of "rules" for this list.
JL> The post that started this admittedly offtopic discussion was the first
JL> in which I mentioned any product of mine in probably somewhat over six
JL> weeks.  This mention was in direct response to a direct request for
JL> availability information.  Frankly, I consider that cool.

I disagree with the "in compliance" bit... but if it's the first
time in six weeks, that's acceptable.  My error for not following
the list more closely.


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to
be blocked.