atom feed46 messages in edu.merit.nanogRe: US DOJ victim letter
FromSent OnAttachments
Jay HenniganJan 19, 2012 12:59 pm 
Michael HareJan 19, 2012 1:01 pm 
Tim JacksonJan 19, 2012 1:02 pm 
Dave EllisJan 19, 2012 1:03 pm 
Jay HenniganJan 19, 2012 1:04 pm 
Michael J McCaffertyJan 19, 2012 1:04 pm 
MLJan 19, 2012 1:05 pm 
Randy CarpenterJan 19, 2012 1:05 pm 
Alan CleggJan 19, 2012 1:08 pm 
Andrew D. DibbleJan 19, 2012 1:15 pm 
Chris AdamsJan 19, 2012 1:16 pm 
Chris AdamsJan 19, 2012 1:18 pm 
Lane PowersJan 19, 2012 1:27 pm 
PCJan 19, 2012 1:33 pm 
Carlos AlcantarJan 19, 2012 1:34 pm 
Simon LockhartJan 19, 2012 1:35 pm 
Todd LyonsJan 19, 2012 1:37 pm 
Ryan GelobterJan 19, 2012 2:36 pm 
-Hammer-Jan 20, 2012 6:06 am 
Mike AndrewsJan 20, 2012 6:55 am 
Robert BonomiJan 20, 2012 11:05 am 
Carlos AlcantarJan 27, 2012 10:11 am 
Bryan Horstmann-AllenJan 27, 2012 10:16 am 
Randy EpsteinJan 27, 2012 10:20 am 
MikeJan 27, 2012 10:21 am 
Vald...@vt.eduJan 27, 2012 10:22 am 
Randy EpsteinJan 27, 2012 10:31 am 
Carlos AlcantarJan 27, 2012 10:45 am 
Sean DonelanJan 27, 2012 10:52 am 
Jon LewisJan 27, 2012 12:22 pm 
Harry HoffmanJan 27, 2012 12:29 pm 
Martin HanniganJan 27, 2012 7:19 pm 
bman...@vacation.karoshi.comJan 28, 2012 8:30 am 
John PeachJan 28, 2012 8:39 am 
Ryan GelobterJan 28, 2012 7:11 pm 
Jack BatesJan 30, 2012 7:53 am 
Matthew S. CrockerJan 30, 2012 7:55 am 
Carlos AlcantarJan 31, 2012 2:30 pm 
Phil DyerJan 31, 2012 4:38 pm 
Ryan PavelyJan 31, 2012 4:43 pm 
Ronald BonicaJan 31, 2012 5:29 pm 
Carlos AlcantarJan 31, 2012 6:52 pm 
TFMLFeb 1, 2012 7:32 am 
PCFeb 1, 2012 11:53 am 
Robert E. SeastromFeb 2, 2012 2:57 am 
bman...@vacation.karoshi.comFeb 2, 2012 3:22 am 
Subject:Re: US DOJ victim letter
From:Robert Bonomi (bon@mail.r-bonomi.com)
Date:Jan 20, 2012 11:05:22 am
List:edu.merit.nanog

From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail@nanog.org Fri Jan 20 08:11:24 2012 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:07:10 -0600 From: -Hammer- <bhmc@gmail.com> To: nan@nanog.org Subject: Re: US DOJ victim letter

On a less serious note, did anyone notice the numbers on the fbi.gov link? I'm pretty sure they are implying those are IP addresses. 123.456.789 and 987.654.321. Must be the same folks that do the Nexus documentation for Cisco.

For illustration purposes, for a non-techincal audience, it seems (at least somewhat) reasonable to use 'nonets' instead of octets. After all, 'no nets' are clearly not what DNS -should- be returning. *GRIN*

And, of course, systems using the traditional unix dotted-quad to binary conversion logic _will_ happily convert those strings to a 32-bit int.