programs really need access to few files and resources
anyway (and naturally, there would be ways to give access to wide
range of resources, if needed -- the old group/owner uids would be
still available for that purpose)
--
Markku Savela ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Technical Research Centre of Finland
Multimedia
From: Leonid Yegoshin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Markku Savela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case of mail attachment containing an executable, we could quite
safely try to run it, and the system would just inform that it tries
to open this or that file (do you want to allow it?), trying to
open TCP
ICANN is getting millions, and not giving back much. Dismantle ICANN,
redirect money to IETF. Running few root servers should not cost
millions...
From: Haim Rochberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am looking for any protocol or type of protocol/application that
runs over TCP/IP, and that packets of that same session belong
(i.e. either destined or sourced) to/by more then one subscribers
(meaning that each packet belongs to one subscriber, but
LLMNR does create extra queries to root servers. Lets say I have named
my local devices in LLMNR as
fridge
tv
vcr
myserver
Now, every time, when some application wants to contact those devices,
it does a normal getbyname using one of the names.
Because there is only one network in my home,
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The other side of the coin is the fact that many devices will effectively
require no more than a /128 because of the way they connect up to the
network. For example cell phones will be serviced on plans where the
subscription fee is per device.
I recently got notice from IETF mailing lists that my mail has been
bouncing. The notice didn't have any examples of the bounces, so I
couldn't get any clue what is wrong. However, now I got a bounce
notice from bugtrag.. and it had this note
---
The Postfix
---
Apparently networksolutions for some reason occasionally resolves
burp.tkv.asdf.org into resalehost.networksolutions.com.
Isn't this behaviour totally antisocial from networksolutions and how
can it be stopped?
Well, insert foot in mouth... possibly the domain
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
an address like :::192.0.2.3
afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe.
Whether the stacks are
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to be of the opinion that fallback behavior should be extended to
, and you seem to be the first one to express that opinion. (I myself have
no opinion on how to resolve this other than believing it has to be resolved -
the present ambigiuty is
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont remi.denis-courm...@nokia.com
On Saturday 25 April 2009 22:32:35 ext Christian Huitema wrote:
There are obvious examples where multiple gateways make sense. For
example, a home network could have routers attached to different
broadband
On 05/07/2012 03:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So far I don't see any interest in production deployment other than
our own plans so I don't think your working group consensus has
relevance.
The draft is for TLS, but it occurs to me to ponder.. would
similar approach work for IPsec IKEv2
12 matches
Mail list logo
