|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gu=F0bj=F6rn_S._Hreinsson?= <gsh@centrum.is> To: <vickyr@socal.rr.com>, <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:35:56 -0000 Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Possible someone on the list didn't understand the content, didn't realize this was sent via a mailing lists and submitted this as a spam message to SPAMCOP. Less likely someone didn't know how to get off the mailing list and this was the result. In both cases the submitter exercised bad judgement. But the mailing list could be more helpful as well. There have been no reminders from the mailing list since I signed up which I think is a good policy for a mailing list. The mailing list only uses "Precedence: bulk" to mark it as a mailing list. That said, this is a case of misjudgment, albeit perhaps a premature and a hasty one. Rgds, -GSH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicky Rode" <vickyr@socal.rr.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu>; <nanog@nanog.org>; <nanog-support@nanog.org> Cc: <rrsecurity@socal.rr.com>; <vickyr@socal.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:51 PM Subject: Spamcop > > 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@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@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@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@reports.spamcop.net > To: abuse@rr.com > Subject: [SpamCop (24.30.181.126) id:988145978]Hierarchical Credit-based > Queuing (HCQ): QoS > Precedence: list > Message-ID: <rid_988145978@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@socal.rr.com> > Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:36:41 -0700 > From: Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com> > Reply-To: vickyr@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@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 > > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |