Kudos to Qwest

Maybe some of the telco's are finally learning that the quicker you can
install, the sooner you can bill. :slight_smile:

K

                    "Vincent J.
                    Bono" To: <nanog@merit.edu>
                    <vbono@vinny. cc:
                    > Subject: Kudos to Qwest
                    Sent by:
                    owner-nanog@m
                    erit.edu
                                                                                                               
                    07/09/2002
                    04:00 PM
                                                                                                               
We always hear the worst but I just thought I would plug Qwest in that they
just installed an OC-12 point to point cross country for me in 27 hours
from
time of order. This included cross connects at Level3.

That never stopped Worldcom from billing.

Installation? We don't need no stinking Installation!

:slight_smile:

Well, theres a matter of "customer acceptance" too.... then, "Let the billing begin!!"

This mail is to notify you that the OC768c that you have ordered has
been installed (sometime soon ... promise ... after the check clears).
Please send the check for 1,000,000,000.00 USD for the first six months
of service to:

CASH
c/o Joseph T. Klein retirement fund.
P.O.Box 551510
Las Vegas, NV. 89155-1510

Thank You.

I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending
these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.

This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.

The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have
names that start with ATT....

This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because
opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings
read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT
attachments.

(flame off)

John Palmer wrote:

I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending
these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.

Agreed, that is annoying.

It appears to be the result of PGP signed messages, from every instance I
can see:

X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="==========32168813=========="

and:

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s9fJI615cBHmzTOP"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

Try filtering on the text 'application/pgp-signature' and you won't see them
anymore.

Mike

There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem
your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant
desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop
fighting.

Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are
plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages.
If you want to see them, then use one of those MUA's, or get MS to fix its
mailers.

I suppose the reason that outlook doesn't support PGP attachments isn't
because MS is promoting a different standard? So much for interoperability.

--Adam

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending
these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.

This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.

The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have
names that start with ATT....

This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because
opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings
read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT
attachments.

(flame off)

<FLAME ON!>

That would be annoying if it were true.

What you are seeing is PGP/MIME, a standards based protocol for sending
secure and authenticated messages. For some reason, you are using a
non-standards compliant mail program with known security risks that can
not recognize PGP/MIME as a valid MIME type. This could be why you are so
concerned with opening attachments.

Please filter all messages with the words PGP, Secure, and/or NANOG to
prevent this misunderstanding in the future.

- --
BillT@Mahagonny.com - PGP KeyID#: 0xFB966670
Anti-Microsoft Zelot since 1989

There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express.

Uh, you _are_ joking, right?

                                -Bill

Sometimes a signature is unnecessary: the foolishness of the comment itself
can be proof of its authorship.

jnull
PGP: 0x54B1A25C
"!!!!!" It's the little things ....

John Palmer

:
: There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem
: your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant
: desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop
: fighting.

Uh, no. I *don't* need to get used to it and there *are* things wrong
with it...

scott

:
: ----- Original Message -----
: From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de>
: To: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net>
: Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM
: Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
:
:
: > John,
: >
: > use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know
: > ...
: >
: > Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express -
: >
: > ----- Original Message -----
: > From: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net>
: > To: <nanog@merit.edu>
: > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM
: > Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its
: > annoying and no one can see your message
: >
: >
: > >
: > > I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending
: > > these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.
: > >
: > > This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.
: > >
: > > The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have
: > > names that start with ATT....
: > >
: > > This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because
: > > opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings
: > > read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT
: > > attachments.
: > >
: > > (flame off)
: > >
: > >
: > > ----- Original Message -----
: > > From: "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net>
: > > Cc: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu>
: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM
: > > Subject: Billing Notice
: > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: >
:
:

Apologies in advance for perpetuating this OT flame war.... Anyone with MUA
replacement suggestions not covered below, please send them directly.

I have been searching for the last year to replace OE. Thus far, it is the
only IMAP client I have found which has these two critical qualities:

1) Does not crash attempting to load headers from an IMAP mailbox +500MB in
size / +2000 messages. I use server-side filters and segregate mail based on
date into subfolders by hand, but still can't avoid this condition from
happening occasionally (i.e. long weekend) even with a lot of maintenance
(and aggressive use of RBLs). And this on a machine with 768MB of memory, it
shouldn't be a resources issue.... Ironically, the full version of Outlook
chokes just as bad as every other client I've tried, but OE has proven
itself a pinnacle of stability (I cannot recall the last time it crashed).

2) Will display the unread count of every IMAP folder without manual
checking on my behalf. Due to the environment issues mentioned above, the
most important stuff has to be filtered server-side into a sub-mailbox that
is not deluged with spam and more mundane matters. I don't care as much
about the unread count of "Inbox" as I do of "Trouble".

In short, I'm using OE because I need a functional IMAP client that isn't
crashing every time I sneeze. The short list that I have tried includes:

- Netscape Messenger, vers. 4.7 - 6.x (both Windows and unix)
- Mozilla release 1 and prior
- Mutt, pine and kmail (on both linux and *BSD)
- Eudora latest release

It is the mail situation which has kept me tied to windows. Perhaps I should
just change my e-mail address....

Mike

P.S. Far be it from me to defend OE, but since at least Sept 1999- the month
I switched to IMAP and have archives to date it- I have had exactly 0 virus
infections. Perhaps it's because I read bugtraq and patch religiously, or
perhaps it's because I know better than to load .bat/com/exe/pif/scr files
received via e-mail. However, I do not maintain anything in the address
book, in the expectation that one *will* eventually slip through.

Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody@zocalo.net>

    > There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express.

Uh, you _are_ joking, right?

Outlook and Outlook Express have very similar GUI's, but are very different
under the hood. OE has a lot more in common with Eudora than it does with
"real" Outlook. In the 3+ years I've been using OE, the only problem I've ever
had is with those damned PGP/MIME messages. Zero crashes to date.

S

There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem

  Surely you must be joking.

your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant
desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop
fighting.

  On NANOG? Are you sure?

  So, I took the past three years of NANOG postings, and
grepped them for X-Mailer headers. The sample consists of
20634 postings since June 14th, 1999.

  Of these 20634, 10996 didn't have X-Mailer headers and
although some may have this information elsewhere, I'm not
going to bother.

  Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer
references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random
X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems
to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the
last month.)

  The breakdown:

  Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%)
  Mozilla 11.41%
  Eudora 10.86%
  ELM 6.63%
  exmh 5.25%
  Web Mail 5.20%
  Mutt 4.70%
  New MH 3.64%
  VM 2.36%
  Mulberry 1.90%
  Gnus 1.27%
  MH 0.96%

  If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample,
Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any
M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header.

  Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this
is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else :wink:

  Still, 18% is a far cry from 90%. Care to try that
again?

  --msa

Even in its heyday, the NANOG list has always been pretty far
  from being a representative sample of the Internet. At this
  point I'd call it a stretch even to claim that NANOG posters
  are a representative sample of current routing engineers.

Mulberry is definitely worth a look for the setup you describe (http://www.cyrusoft.com/). It's the only mailer I've tried that does IMAP, including off-line use, really well.

My largest folder right now is 8606 messages and it handles it fine (it does have a problem with *huge* text messages though).

I'm afraid you have brought up one of my pet peeves here.

>What you are seeing is PGP/MIME, a standards based protocol for

<snip blah blah blah>

Standards exist as a way for parties who *agree* to use certain data formats to use a previously defined standard format without having to redefine or renegotiate the format all the time.

Just because a standard exists for sending email with certain types of attachments, that doesn't mean that all users must agree to use clients that can (and will) process data in every new format, and thus everyone else needs to immediately adjust to each and every new standard that managed to make it thru the RFC process. For instance, there's a "standard" for the text/html protocol too (and dozens of others), yet we clearly eschew that "standard" for messages sent to this mailing list. What makes the PGP-MIME standard different, and so important, that the rest of us have to adapt to it, while eschewing other new standards?

  What's wrong with just using plain text and putting the
  damn PGP sig in the body? That's a standard that all
  email clients can process, and it works for everyone.

Heck, it even worked for you when you sent the post I'm replying to here....

>> This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.
>>
>That would be annoying if it were true.

What is most annoying is the apparent insistence that this particular standard is so critically important that everyone should rush out and upgrade their mail clients to new ones that can process these attachments (while 1001 other new types can just be ignored). There are other ways to achieve the same goal (using plain text, no attachments needed), especially in a discussion list forum. I find your position on PGP-MIME to be a violation of the spirit of RFC 1855 (which predates 2015):

     - If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
       is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
       connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
       the more they pay.

     - "Reasonable" expectations for conduct via e-mail depend on your
       relationship to a person and the context of the communication.
       Norms learned in a particular e-mail environment may not apply in
       general to your e-mail communication with people across the
       Internet. Be careful with slang or local acronyms.

     - Delivery receipts, non-delivery notices, and vacation programs
       are neither totally standardized nor totally reliable across the
       range of systems connected to Internet mail. They are invasive
       when sent to mailing lists, and some people consider delivery
       receipts an invasion of privacy. In short, do not use them.

(today's multitude of attachment formats are the invasive equivalent of yesteryear's
invasive and non-standard auto-responders, especially when sent to mailing lists)

     - Be careful with monospacing fonts and diagrams. These will
       display differently on different systems, and with different
       mailers on the same system.

IMHO if you had to be careful about _font spacing_ to ensure your message was readable to everyone in the discussion forum, today you should be even *more* careful about attachments, ensuring that your message is sent in a format where it can be "properly displayed" on *all* recipient systems. Attempting to force a new format on all members of a large and diverse mailing list when the new format is neither necessary nor widely supported (and reasonable alternatives exist) is just selfish, and rude.

jc

Most of those are likely pine, which you can tell by looking at the
message-id...

James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
up@3.am http://3.am

Guess no one uses Pegasus Mail anymore,

*reminiscence of the good ol days when that was all that the Department of
Defense used*