Dear Members of the IESG,
I read the announcement you made yesterday and I felt deeply
called to it.
I have very recently released an initial Internet-Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-proust-flow-routing-00.txt
that deals with some form of
I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was
taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was
the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates
IPv6) ie the Internet ceased at a firewall or other such IP level gateway.
--On 18. februar 2004 18:06 + Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was
taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was
the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates
IPv6)
I got the following stuff in response to a mail I sent to the IETF list.
Since I have no idea whether this is an email harvester or a legitimate
antispam tool (the form gave no indication, and no links to more
information about its owner), I don't have enough information to decide
reliably to
On 18 Feb 2004, at 13:06, Tom Petch wrote:
I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was
taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet)
was
the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this
predates
IPv6) ie the Internet ceased at a
So if you had received the mail sent here yesterday claiming to be from
Alain Durand would you block Sun or IBM? I am sure Alain did not send a
random executable file to a non-existent account. It appears someone figured
out he had responded to me on this list in the past, and plenty of times
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:43:15 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the following stuff in response to a mail I sent to the IETF list.
Since I have no idea whether this is an email harvester or a legitimate
antispam tool (the form gave no indication, and no links to
Tony,
TH a legitimate message from someone I have corresponded with in the past. The
TH only way to detect a fraud at the MUA would be to have a verifiable
TH signature from Alain (this was trapped at my MTA due to the exe file).
yes, but no.
first, there is an increasingly heated debate
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Thn enclosed example of how not to filter spam is offered for those
who might want to preemptively add accuspam.com or downloadfast.com
to their blacklists.
It is also a classic example of what is wrong with the MUA filtering
tactics Robert Brown
On Feb 18, 2004, at 4:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i have run internet mailing lists since about 1985. when the first C/R
systems showed up a few years ago, i arrived at simple conclusion
very quickly.
anybody who installs a C/R system and doesn't whitelist the mailing
lists
they subscribe to
From: Tony Hain
To: 'Vernon Schryver' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So if you had received the mail sent here yesterday claiming to be from
Alain Durand would you block Sun or IBM? ...
I should not have responded specifically (if at all) to the other
gentleman's complaint about my
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
Tony,
TH a legitimate message from someone I have corresponded with in the past. The
TH only way to detect a fraud at the MUA would be to have a verifiable
TH signature from Alain (this was trapped at my MTA due to the exe file).
yes, but no.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Tony,
TH a legitimate message from someone I have corresponded with in the
past.
The
TH only way to detect a fraud at the MUA would be to have a verifiable
TH signature from Alain (this was trapped at my MTA due to the exe file).
yes, but no.
first, there is an
Tony,
first, there is an increasingly heated debate between folks who want
to sign the message (TEOS, DomainKeys), versus others who want to
secure the channel between sender and receiver (RMX, LMAP, SPF,
etc.).
TH Is there an obvious reason not to do both?
Cost of effort. Distraction of
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
] From: Robert G. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] ...
] In the department, where we do USE spam assassin, no bounce messages are
] generated except when mail fails for one of the standard reasons
] unrelated to filtering of any sort. ...
On today's
Dean Anderson wrote:
A covert or sneaky channel is merely one in which the communication is
//not authorized by the security model// It has nothing to do with
readability or detectability.
To be useful for its covert purposes, a covert channel should not be easily
detectable as a covert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave first, there is an increasingly heated debate between folks who
Dave want to sign the message (TEOS, DomainKeys), versus others who want
Dave to secure the channel between sender and receiver
From: Robert G. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
If a message comes in incorrectly addressed, yes, it will bounce. It
should, shouldn't it? This has nothing to do with whether or not it is
spam or a virus or any other kind of message. If it is a bad thing, it
is a very fundamental bad
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Tony Hain
To: 'Vernon Schryver' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So if you had received the mail sent here yesterday claiming to be from
Alain Durand would you block Sun or IBM? ...
I should not have responded specifically (if
Hi,
FYI, I've made an ical version of the agenda available at
http://www.icalx.com/public/larse/IETF-59.ics.
Apple iCal users can directly subscribe at
webcal://www.icalx.com/public/larse/IETF-59.ics. I hear this may work
with Mozilla as well, but I have no firsthand experience with that.
(A perl
20 matches
Mail list logo
