Hi Tom & Acee, To the best of my knowledge what may have triggered spam in this thread for you is not ISIS nor IS-IS words.
It is used twice "quote" "quote" as such special characters are very rear and unsual in the subjects of normal email communication. Thx, Robert On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:50 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of tom petch < > [email protected]> > Sent: 14 October 2021 16:42 > From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > Sent: 14 October 2021 13:13 > > Does it junk the mail if the one true and proper form is used: "IS-IS" > (i.e., with the hyphen)? :) > > <tp> > > Yes. That is what the thread about Prefix unreachable that Acee kicked > off has in the Subject: and it has junked about 60 of those for me. Of > course they still exist, I just have to remember to look for them, whereas > ones I send with that character string do not make it to the list although > they are in the Sent folder. Sometimes it seems to inspect the body and > junk on the basis of that but clearly not in this case as I have received > your e-mail. > > It even junked an e-mail that I sent to another WG but I cannot see what > it saw in that! > > <tp2> > Having made some 50 or more reports that this is not junk, then the > subsequent e-mails have made it to my Inbox and not the Junk folder so my > ESP does take notice eventually! I suspect though that it will not learn > and when another message with those four or five characters appear in the > Subject: then I will again have to retrieve them from Junk. > > Of course I do not expect you to stop using the abbreviation, with or > without a hyphen - rather I was flagging it in the expectation that others > whose domains are serviced by this ESP may be experiencing the same as me > but had not noticed. Normally I get very little e-mail classified as Junk > (despite getting a lot of phishing e-mail from within the domain). > > Tom Petch > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > On Oct 14, 2021, at 7:15 AM, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Top posting for a different topic > > > > My ESP, one of the larger ones in the world, is classifying most of the > LSR e-mails as junk. Yes, I have reported them as not junk but doubt if > it will make a difference. > > > > To me it is obvious that anything with that well known abbreviation that > was coined by ISO for their IGP in the subject line is going to receive > unfavourable treatment so it may be that while many are responding there > are others who like me have an ESP who is busy filling their junk folder. > > > > Equally if I send an e-mall with that abbreviation it goes into a black > hole with no MDN nothirng > > > > Tom Petch > > > > ps perhaps this is the considered opinion of the ESP on the I-D:-) > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= > [email protected]> > > Sent: 12 October 2021 20:05 > > To: [email protected] > > > > Speaking as WG Chairs: > > > > The authors of “Prefix Unreachable Announcement” have requested an > adoption. The crux of the draft is to signal unreachability of a prefix > across OSPF or areas when area summarization is employed and prefix is > summarised. We also have “ and OSPF Extension for Event Notification” which > can be used to address the same use case. The drafts take radically > different approaches to the problem and the authors of both drafts do not > wish to converge on the other draft’s method so it is understandable that > merging the drafts really isn’t an option. > > > > Before an adoption call for either draft, I’d like to ask the WG: > > > > > > 1. Is this a problem that needs to be solved in the IGPs? The use case > offered in both drafts is signaling unreachability of a BGP peer. Could > this better solved with a different mechanism (e.g., BFD) rather than > flooding this negative reachability information across the entire IGP > domain? > > 2. Assuming we do want to take on negative advertisement in the IGP, > what are the technical merits and/or detriments of the two approaches? > > > > We’ll reserve any further discussion to “WG member” comments on the two > approaches. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee and Chris > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
