--On fredag, oktober 26, 2001 11:51:16 -0400 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
> I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
> talking about Jim has been generating? BLB
actually, this thread, which I read as being about whether or not the
clauses of RFC 3005 should ever be invoked or not, is relevant to the IETF.
At the moment, I have Anthony Atkielski against, and everyone else for.
I take it that the community upholds the rough consensus of RFC 3005.
(Note: I also read the discussion as showing that the community feels that
the subject of censoring the list is a tricky one, and that we do NOT feel
that the RFC 3005 provisions should be invoked lightly. This is a Good
Thing.)
Harald
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have... Kevin Farley
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have... Pete Resnick
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges ... Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting priville... Pete Resnick
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Anthony Atkielski
- Fw: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have... Vernon Schryver
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have... Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Anthony Atkielski
- RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Steve Ellis
- Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been... Thomas Dineen
