In thinking about the issues of temporary areas generally and
this one in particular, I've got pair of concerns that have not
been mentioned so far:
(i) There is always the possibility that Nomcom selections and
decisions will change the balance of consensus of the IESG on
any particular
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:03:43 GMT, Lloyd Wood said:
Bush and Bernstein are both the kind of people who wish to rearrange
the world entirely to their own satisfaction. How unfortunate that
they must share that world.
It would be a lot simpler if one or both of them qualified as a net.loon (we've
It's just that IETF has discussed this periodically for
many years.
Understood and valid. And this will be my last post to the main page on
this subject. What I would like to point out as that the change to the
root, that ICANN has described as never been before, has now been done.
If there was
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
COM is a failed experiment and needs to be closed and/or eliminated.
i thought i'd already said that. yes, i did. in november, 1995.
h
2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors
I spoke on this at the Sub-IP area meeting. I beleive that the Area
provides focus for a class
All the stuff in the sub-ip area is a combination of
applications running over IP and lower-layer services
over which IP (and presumably anything else -- after
all what do the MP stand for in MPLS?) runs.
The logic which directs that these things be standardized
in the IETF could be used to
Eric Rosen wrote:
Joe Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in particular) would be better
Joe served by occuring within the context of their original host
Joe organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over IP), since it was those
Joe organizations that defined those LANs, and
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:54:14 PST, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
COM is a failed experiment and needs to be closed and/or eliminated.
i thought i'd already said that. yes, i did. in november, 1995.
h
It may
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
carry ethernet over
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug noted on 12/04/2002 06:14:26 PM:
...However your
new p-integer does allow for 0 which is still a non-useful value for
LATENCY.
I agree the zero has no meaning - I'lll fix that.
So are you taking the position that NO latency-param means Never times
One of the main reasons why anti-spam measures are failing is that the
spam-artists are fraudulently hijacking people's email addresses so as
to bypass anti-spam filters.
My reading of the open enrollement policy is that anyone can contribute.
I don't think that a secondary manual filter by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case CAP 1.0 09-submitted is unclear as to what it means when no
latency-param is specified and that needs to be rectified before it can
pass WG last call.
I'll add:
If LATENCY is not specified, then the initiator is indicating
that any timeouts are up to
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
I can't speak about the quality or relevance of work that's been done in the
sub-ip area; I simply haven't followed it closely enough.
However it's clear to me that the Internet has an increasing need for
commonality in services that are (depending on how you think about them)
either between IP
From: D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: namedroppers, continued
...
Okay, Bush: Put [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the list of addresses from which
submissions are automatically accepted.
sorry bernstein. as
Bush and Bernstein are both the kind of people who wish to rearrange
the world entirely to their own satisfaction. How unfortunate that
they must share that world.
for the record, we must each work to create the world we want to live in
(and that we want our children to live in.) i'm not in
How much spam is going to namedroppers?
I haven't seen any. So, don't you think this has gone a little of the deep
end?
--Dean
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
One of the main reasons why anti-spam measures are failing is that the
spam-artists are fraudulently
They have COM+ and COM++ and DCOM now that they are working on, including
this .NET thing.
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not
Hi -
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:41:52 -0800
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: namedroppers, continued
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.com
...
At 08:28 AM 12/2/2002 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to require every
submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed (PGP
or S/MIME), to require the subscribers to register their signing key and
to then filter the mail
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fred Bake
r writes:
At 08:28 AM 12/2/2002 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to require every
submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed (PGP
or S/MIME), to require the subscribers to
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, at 13:41 [=GMT-0800], Fred Baker wrote:
I think it was Steve Bellovin that suggested a procedure for reducing the
utility of spoofing source addresses in emails; if not, it was me and I
happened to suggest something his favorite algorithm fit into, by having a
host in each
Too bad nobody has ever thought of it
before; we could really use the outcome
of that research
while researchers has not thought about global
PKI, their are research which focus on spam
elimination.
this is the work all about (yesterday's seminar in a MIT group)
If I don't know you, and
From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... I think that boils down to provide a global PKI in this solution,
and presumes that spammers are incapable of using one. That might be a
great research topic. Too bad nobody has ever thought of it before; we
could really use the outcome of that
From: Marc Schneiders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
It might be easier to write a new protocol to succeed email, instant
messaging, mobile phones (something useful in itself) with built-in
abuse control from the start.
That's another stupid crackpot spam solution that just won't go away.
You
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:34:14 PST, Hallam-Baker, Phillip said:
The problem here is that having Randy Bush moderate is
not a scalable solution to the problems of Spam in general.
We could clone him, but that's probably not scalable either
msg09660/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bill,
I don't think everybody is talking about the same COM...
-Original Message-
From: Bill Cunningham
They have COM+ and COM++ and DCOM now that they are working on,
including this .NET thing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'v been saying about need for more radical change in mail protocol for
years now on mailing lists. I'd rather work on smtp itself, but some
people who were involved in original protocol do not want any serious
changes to what they'v done, though its clear that abuse and other holes
with
This is note quite right. While its impossible to built open system that
would prevent all abuse, you can first of all built system that would
provide good verification of who sender is and you can do a lot to make it
difficult to send thousands of same emails or at least make it easy to
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
proposal of mailfrom dns record - http://www.vix.com/~vixie/mailfrom.txt or
I've had a look at vixies proposal and it's a good one. I certainly would
welcome something like the mailfrom dns record.
regards
joe baptista
it's difficult to imagine a mailing list for which this thread is on-topic.
I think it was Steve Bellovin that suggested a procedure for reducing the
utility of spoofing source addresses in emails; if not, it was me and I
happened to suggest something his favorite algorithm fit into, by having
proposal of mailfrom dns record - http://www.vix.com/~vixie/mailfrom.txt or
I've had a look at vixies proposal and it's a good one. I certainly would
welcome something like the mailfrom dns record.
actually I'd call it a nonstarter in its current form.
I would have to agree.
given
Although I am reluctant to suggest
anything involving public key crypto, another approach would be to put a
public key in the MAIL-FROM DNS record and add a new header field containing a
signature covering the message's MAIL FROM and the current date.
that's an interesting idea. I don't see
34 matches
Mail list logo
