.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|=|
|Q: What goes Pieces of 7! Pieces of 7
to agree to a process that means they don't
get to stonewall any more.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My
be almost as cheap for the US
people to attend, and (last I heard) Canada didn't have visa
requirements derived from the War On Alleged Terrorists Who Have Major
Oil Reserves.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
will get blacklisted.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
||
|What now, Brain? We should flee
.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
||
|In the country
understand--nor do I much care--I'm just pointing out that it's not
plain whether anybody here is lying.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own.|
|==|
|Guide us, oh holy Lemming Herder
Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc
How is it defamation if the only one that gets the message is Av8?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
; they don't filter. Their basic package is dynamic
IP, but you can get multiple static IPs, without going to SDSL.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
disrupted, and doesn't
have to worry about being stranded if the micropayment company goes out
of business.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
||
|How many roads must a man
Dave Aronson wrote:
On Wed February 25 2004 09:53, John Stracke wrote:
Not necessarily. Spam viruses would then start collecting people's
private keys.
Theoretically possible, but at least it would significantly raise the
bar.
Only one person needs to figure out how to do it. Think script
David Morris wrote:
It also supposes that the private keys aren't protected with a passphrase.
Nope. All you need is a keystroke monitor.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
, you're
on firmer ground than if the IETF says you don't need one.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Test =)
qxbavnirg
--
Test, yep.
I didn't write that; the return address was faked. The Received: lines
show it was from an IP address assigned to the University of Sydney.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
is part of their job.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
warning...)
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
) download a hot list to block directly on the machine
It's been done, and the spammers have already evolved to get around it:
they randomize the messages so that the hashes don't match.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
to make
signatures useless.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
; they figure you can always send mail via your
ISP's SMTP server. Yes, it's dain-bramaged.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital
signatures.
Which digital signatures are you talking about? Neither S/MIME nor
OpenPGP sign the headers in messages, only the bodies.
S/MIME can sign
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
S/MIME can sign the Subject: header (see RFC-1848, section 6.3)
RFC 1848 is for MOSS, not S/MIME or OpenPGP. MOSS had no significant
implementation.
Oh. Sorry
it claims to be from.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
the market?
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own
cryptanalysis?
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own
. The IETF would be
low-volume, so we'd probably be paying closer to $1 apiece. So just
the tags for just one meeting would cost more than a passel of barcode
scanners.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
, and barcode readers are cheap. Or
somebody could hack up software to do barcode recognition on the image
of the bluesheet, and then the secretariat can use a flatbed scanner and
scan a whole sheet at a time.
--
/\
|John Stracke
.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own.|
|==|
|I have strong opinions about ambivalence. |
\==/
was not made for e-commerce, its mission was to
communicate during nuclear warfare.
False.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive
?
This is a good point. If an L2 error can make a normal discard on
errors packet come through marked as tolerate errors, then
implementing this feature can introduce errors in existing applications.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
ISP has no
incentive to shrink the size of the bitpipe the sender needs to buy.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My
different likelihoods of corruption; you may decide that it's
safe to set the bit on Ethernet, but not on 802.11*. And, in general,
the app doesn't know all of the L2s that may be involved when it sends a
packet.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
has been recently washed.
Ah, but wearing clean clothes at IETF is practical; it's so inconvenient
when somebody walks by, gets a whiff, passes out, and trips over your
power cord.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http
.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|=|
|The Reality Check's
for people who need to build new apps to
kludge around NATs.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own
locks you in to using just
those apps, which means that Cn has a hidden component that isn't
visible to most consumers.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
||
|Never do card tricks for your poker buddies.|
\/
* take a lot to
convince them that it would reduce spam; people with a normal, healthy
cynicism gland (and without the expertise to analyze the new protocols)
would assume that it was just a marketing ploy.
--
/=\
|John Stracke
?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
goal we know we can
meet! :-)
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
.
And the court whose ruling was overturned (I read the ruling) had made
the same sort of error Dean is making: assuming that the only costs
involved were those of physical resources (paper or disk space).
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
Jeroen Massar wrote:
John Stracke wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines
are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire,
or similar.
In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit
addresses
whether it was in DNS lookup or
not. Would've saved time in the long run, since debugging takes longer
than coding.)
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
get the wrong HIP from the host that answers when you use
the local address, then you know not to use that one.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
-to-point
network, you can pick convenient addresses.
Most OS's require a (unique) hostname to be entered/automatically
generated on install
False.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http
it reaches first, as a
first cut at discovering the most efficient path (that's what I did when
I implemented this some time back). Being on the same network, D will
probably respond before C.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
by having to work around those NATs?
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
Keith Moore wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:31:23 -0500
John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides, we have three such prefixes, given RFC-1918 and 6to4:
2002:A00::/24, 2002:AC10::/28, and 2002:C0A8::/32.
the same problems exist for these as for SLs.
Right.
we should deprecate
that boundary.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
compelling
arguments from operators and others that we don't need a special prefix
for disconnected sites...
Besides, we have three such prefixes, given RFC-1918 and 6to4:
2002:A00::/24, 2002:AC10::/28, and 2002:C0A8::/32.
--
/\
|John
as reliable.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
will be horrific. A solution to that would probably be a
solution to the general problem of route flap.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive
it's
impossible, but last I heard nobody knew how to do it; the route flap
would be horrible.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive
S Woodside wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
proponents want to be able to do massive multihoming, with all
participants with external links sharing those links, and all the
traffic from the outside finding the shortest way in. I won't say
it's impossible
Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't know anyone who has asked for hardcopy proceedings for years.
I remember seeing a set ordered by a coworker about 2 years ago.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal
pay more; that would be the opposite of what
we want to do here.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF.
One risk there: If the IETF became too dependent on big donors, its
neutrality could be threatened.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
. :-)
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|=|
|We can't duplicate
problem. ;-)
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com|
|Centive |My opinions are my own
to Europe and
gotten a Eurailpass (30 days one time, 15 days another time), the pass
cost less than the flight. It costs extra in travel time, of course.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal
around breaking
cookie together, though.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
to the hotel would be on the short list of people from whom to buy
access, so sponsoring us would be equivalent to giving away the line.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http
.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going
get pronounced.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC
with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps. The
authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale
before the WG closes down.
--
/\
|John Stracke
today.
I believe he meant for new documents. I'm not sure, of course, since he
put his comments at the start of his reply instead of alongside the
quoted text he was referring to.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer
; but that basically pushes the problem up a
layer. If services are identified by well-known service names in the
SRV record, then people will start filtering at the DNS level.
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr) wrote:
Just three questions :
1/does the IETF support or contest the Inclusive Name Space (the one
operated by NewRoot instead of the ICANN)?
RFC-2826 answers this.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
of traffic an IETF meeting puts out. :-)
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own
John C Klensin wrote:
Folks, the Secretariat is quite good at this stuff.
No argument there. :-)
--
/=\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com
dropped off a bit since then.
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com |
|Centiv|My opinions are my own
trained to my voice.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|I'm a .sig virus...and, boy, am I tired! |
\===/
Marshall Rose wrote:
Each conference room also has a 'bot which records everything that gets
sent:
Very nice. Can these logs be included in the minutes, or alongside them?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
to the meeting, I'd volunteer to be both
minute taker and scribe; then I'd take what I'd scribed to the chat room
and turn it into minutes. No point having to find two volunteers.)
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
MUAs
already let you drag a link from a browser, or specify an attachment by
URL; adding the option to send it as a message/external-body instead of
inline would be a very small extra for users to learn.
--
/\
|John Stracke
a new
form of ID for transport protocols to use.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own
?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk
V Guruprasad wrote:
On Tue 2002.11.05, John Stracke wrote:
The problem is that only the app knows what kind of caching behavior it
needs. For a simple protocol like SMTP or HTTP, pure DNS-based caching
is fine; for a more sophisticated protocol (e.g., any sort of
videoconferencing app
.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice
Dave Crocker wrote:
Using return-path is a bit like paying attention to what mailbox a postal
letter is dropped into.
Or perhaps what post offices it went through on the way.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED
; for that
you do need the kernel, or a daemon).
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own
be reasonable for them to block access
to the update servers.
(*) http://cin.earthweb.com/article/1,3555,10493_1485861,00.html
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com
Timur Shemsedinov wrote:
Here question, whether is necessary to have two
realizations of the RPC using XML?
Again, it's not up to the IETF; XML-RPC already exists. And, in fact,
it predates SOAP.
--
/===\
|John Stracke
resolve it; you
just use it as an identifier. This is a common tactic in XML.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv
other is not a statement of absolute truth,
it's a property of the equality relation you choose to use.
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com
?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv|My opinions are my own. |
|===|
|Ea est fabula nostra
network was like using RFC-1918 addresses on the public network.
--
/==\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com |
|Centiv|My opinions are my own
; it's
just an encoding. Protocols are hard, and that's where the IETF has
expertise.
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions
.
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
||
|This is the .sig
two efforts in this
space; if the W3C were likely to object, they would've by now.
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions
John Stracke wrote:
Kai Kretschmann wrote:
In mid may we published a draft named draft-kretschmann-kai-
sighttp-00.txt and got at least some responses.
...mostly negative, IIRC.
checks archive OK, this was an unworthy bit of snideness, since nearly
all the previous comments came from me
debugging models.
Better to do it with the IETF, which is capable of understanding why
debugging is hard, than with a flash crowd at Starbucks. :-)
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED
; fax-over-IP software would open
things up more. So fax-over-IP would probably lead to an increase in
the prevalence over one-to-many.
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems
.
--
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
||
|This is the .sig that says... Ni! |
\/
the same
thing, you've got a risk of abuse.
John Stracke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Incentive Systems, Inc.
http://www.incentivesystems.com
Stuck using Exchange, .signature under construction
and punish counterfeiters, which means
that ordinary people don't have to know how to validate a dollar bill,
because the incidence of forgery is low.
/==\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED
.
/==\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. |
|==|
|Simply vanished--like an old oak table
would
do nothing about that; in fact, it might exacerbate the problem, by
diverting resources that could instead be spent on securing the
server.
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
