At 3:03 PM -0800 3/7/04, Michael Thomas wrote:
From what I can tell, anything that falls
short of perfection then gets summarily
executed.
The majority of the anti-spam proposals being actively discussed
are variants on the prove the sender is who he says he is. None of
these are perfect, yet:
At 10:46 AM -0800 1/28/04, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
The Korean embassy page that is linked to from the IETF meetings page
(http://www.koreaembassy.org/visiting/eng_visas.cfm) makes it
pretty darn clear that US folks should get a visa. They do have a
link from that page saying how wonderful
At 2:31 PM -0500 1/27/04, Steve Bellovin wrote:
I was advised by our corporate travel consultants that I should get a
visa. Given the current international climate -- there was an article
in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal about how other countries
are retaliating for the current U.S.
Greetings again. There seems to be more discussion these days about
replacing SMTP and/or RFC 2822 and/or POP/IMAP for a variety of
reasons. The discussion seems to pop up on a few different lists and
in a few different hallways, and it might be good to have a single
list where folks can
Greetings again. There seems to be more discussion these days about
replacing SMTP and/or RFC 2822 and/or POP/IMAP for a variety of
reasons. The discussion seems to pop up on a few different lists and
in a few different hallways, and it might be good to have a single
list where folks can
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced similar results
but used different underlying transports and different signalling.
--Paul
At 2:39 PM -0600 1/5/04, Pete Resnick wrote:
I got no response (other than an initial e-mail telling me I filled
out part of the form incorrectly, which I answered by e-mail). After
hearing nothing, I called them and got a confirmation number.
Perhaps it is a NACK rather than an ACK protocol?
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
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
At 12:12 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote:
To further your point, an area completely outside of ICANN's purview, yet an
area requiring governance is PKI. We are at the point where deployment of a
PKI has moved beyond technical issues, becoming almost completely the policy
politics of trust.
At 2:14 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd put this a different way. Until PKIs are able to represent
the rich diversity of trust relationships that exist in the real
world, they are mere curiosities with marginal practical value.
Oh, please. Describe a trust relationship that cannot be
At 2:48 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote:
All of those statements, assertions, and so on can be made in
simple signed messages. When you get a message with statements
about your job, you verify that the message has been signed using
your boss' public key. What's the problem here?
Some of
At 2:52 PM -0500 12/14/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:33:23 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said:
At 2:14 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote:
I trust my boss to make statements about my job.
All of those statements, assertions, and so on can be made in simple
signed messages
At 4:29 PM -0500 12/14/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:09:37 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said:
All of that is describable, and many vendors have such products.
There are no standards (or none that are significantly followed) for
such assertions. So? Many different PKIs can
At 8:39 AM -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with governance
To further your point, an
At 3:30 PM +1200 12/9/03, Franck Martin wrote:
And one important fact, is that IETF issues standards which do not
contain patents... but ITU does!
It depends on what you mean by do not contain patents. If you mean
that are not covered by any patents, then tropical living has
really affected
At 4:21 AM -0800 11/21/03, Dinesh Kumar wrote:
Could someone tell the procedure for submitting a
draft to IETF.
See The Tao of the IETF at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
There are going to be *at least* three desirable encodings of a person's
identity -- the 'natural' encoding in the preferred/native charset of the
person's name, some kind of phonetic-ASCII encoding that tells non-natives
how to pronounce the name, and the email/idna encoding[s] that folks would
At 10:41 AM -0500 11/19/03, Brett Thorson wrote:
I am hoping to get this done in time for IETF 59, but with current workload
here at the IETF, I am going to aim for 60.
Something else to add to the list: make software available for
popular OS's that help the NOC team document the problems. For
Sitting in the Thursday plenary, I note none of the network-to-ad-hoc
flappage that have been plaguing us the past few days.
Did the attackers get bored and go home?
Did the accidental ad-hocers finally get their settings right?
Did someone deploy a good blocking mechanism?
--Paul Hoffman,
At 11:54 AM -0500 10/28/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BOF description lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
discussion list, but this discussion is being
cc:ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd suggest that you
move this discussion to whichever of those lists
is actually correct.
It is [EMAIL PROTECTED],
At 11:07 AM +0800 10/3/03, wang liang wrote:
If I find there is no a group for some important issues about Internet, and
It may be necessary to build a new one,what should I do?Who will deal with
this kind of suggestion?Where can I find the detailed process of asking
for a new work
At 2:14 PM +0200 9/18/03, Francis Dupont wrote:
= IMHO it should reject SMTP connection from the beginning with
the 521 greeting described in RFC 1846...
People are unhappy about VeriSign breaking the rules. But here you
are proposing that they follow an *experimental* RFC whose rules were
not
At 10:47 AM -0700 9/2/03, Eliot Lear wrote:
I don't know about about you, Paul, but I'm writing my drafts using
EMACS and Marshall's tool. That allows for generation of HTML,
NROFF, and text. The HTML allows for hyperlinks, which is REALLY
nice.
Great! Why does that mean that the XML input
At 10:26 PM -0700 6/21/03, Alex Zinin wrote:
Folks-
Having watched this discussion, it seems a couple of data points
might be helpful:
1. L2VPN and L3VPN proposed WGs are part of PPVPN WG split
Creation of L2VPN and L3VPN WG does not represent addition of new
work to the IETF. They
At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
- the IETF's track record for this work so far is quite poor
That's not a problem of the ppvpn group only. It is a problem of the IETF.
Generally agree.
I don't need to refresh your memory about IPSec, do I? SKIP, Skeme, Oakley,
IKE. AH or ESP
At 6:43 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
I'm not sure how to argue with the statement the IETF has done a
horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working
group in the IETF.
Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's
find another
standards org
At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
All contributions that are rejected
by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing
lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere.
FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get 10 spams a
At 4:12 PM -0700 5/30/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
Perhaps you could synthesize the numbers in a way that the carriers will
agree to? That it, sanitize out the competitive information, to
produce something relevant only to spam control in the aggregate.
The numbers are a few years old, anecdotal
At 11:36 PM -0700 5/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
The POP-IMAP example is excellent, since it really demonstrates my
point. IMAP is rather popular in some local area network environments.
However it's long history has failed utterly to seriously displace POP
on a global scale.
Exactly right. The
At 10:40 AM -0700 5/30/03, Peter Deutsch wrote:
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
...
So far on this thread, we have heard from none of the large-scale
mail carriers, although we have heard that the spam problem is
costing them millions of dollars a year. That should be a clue to the
IETF list
At 11:09 AM -0700 5/30/03, Tony Hain wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
So far on this thread, we have heard from none of the large-scale
mail carriers, although we have heard that the spam problem is
costing them millions of dollars a year. That should be a clue to the
IETF list. If there is a
At 2:22 PM -0700 5/29/03, Eliot Lear wrote:
Please indicate some historical basis for moving an installed base of
users on this kind of scale and for this kind of reason.
History is replete with examples. From the Internet Worm to Code
Red, consumers do install software when they perceive either
At 4:58 PM -0700 5/29/03, Tony Hain wrote:
The sysadmin effort would be setting up an automated way to hand out
keys, and the user would have a one-time (or very infrequently) effort
to establish a key pair.
And you are saying that is trivial? How would a typical user know
which third parties to
At 11:36 AM -0700 5/28/03, Tony Hain wrote:
The external mechanisms already exist to deal with the
social engineering once the originator can be pinned down.
This is good to hear. I thought that the international trusted
micropayments that would be needed for such a sender-pays system was
a
A modest request: could all the people who think that this is a good
place to advertise their company's products and services please
reconsider? If you really want to offer your services, send a message
to the original proposer, not the whole mailing list. Advertising
here is really, really
At 12:05 AM +0200 3/24/03, Pekka Savola wrote:
I fail to see what added value they might bring
They could be very useful to explaining to our management and
marketing departments and so on the value of standards, particularly
IETF standards. Further, because most companies focus on a small part
This thread is trying to redefine or redesign SMTP's use of TLS. It
should probably be happening on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
instead of the main IETF mailing list. That's where the implementers
are, and that's where the implementers of most of the foo-over-TLS
protocols are. They too should
At 5:34 PM -0800 2/27/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your question assumes that the DUL is actually a meaningful anti-spam
mechanism. It is not.
Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by meaningful? As
someone who uses the DUL list as an anti-spam mechanism and who
experiments with turning it
At 4:50 PM -0800 12/9/02, Tony Hain wrote:
If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
A presentation at the SubIP Area meeting in Atlanta drove home the
point that the amount of coordination in the area was not as high as
ahem Or the IETF could simply start using its own Proposed Standard
mechanism described in RFC 2919.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
At 12:52 PM +0200 6/6/02, Simon Josefsson wrote:
This means IDN is not guaranteed to be secure on non-Unicode systems.
There are alot of non-Unicode systems out there today...
Nothing is ever guaranteed to be secure. Even if we supplied mapping
tables, there is no guarantee that the mapping
At 3:58 AM + 3/11/02, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
You say that you are obliged to ignore all these objections because the
IDN WG has to _do something_.
You are lying again, Dan. Marc never said that, and you know it.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
At 8:15 AM -0500 2/15/02, Scott Brim wrote:
In normative text, I don't see how must could occur anywhere except
where it was supposed to mean MUST.
It occurs when describing how something happened, not what needs to
happen. Example from a current Internet Draft that is having the
At 8:50 AM -0800 1/25/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 10:34 AM 1/25/2002 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed
revision:
Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is
immediately after the nomcom has done it job. That
At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote:
I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned
THREE to me. If everyone else got 3, my apologies. If anyone can
inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it.
Er, a better question is why you spammed the IETF list at all.
At 4:02 PM -0600 11/13/01, Pete Resnick wrote:
I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce
list *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft
announcements. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who
would prefer if the I-D announcements were on a
Going back to the original question about more multicast sessions:
The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time
aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it
turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get
more camera operators in
At 3:56 PM -0400 10/11/01, Darren Dukes wrote:
This may be nit-picking but I have seen no mention on IPSRA, or any other
list, or during any meetings that there are two interoperating independent
implementations of this draft. Is anyone able to confirm that
implementations exist and
If this list cleaned up the spam, how would we receive all your
unsolicited advertisements for your newsletter? I wouldn't want to
prevent IETF list subscribers from having the chance of getting
important Internet insight from someone who can't tell the difference
between a virus/worm and
At 2:45 AM +0100 7/3/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
I do like the 'extend [..] the iCAP protocol without being obliged to
retain any level of compatibility with the current iCAP proposal.'
Fine, since iCAP's just an individual draft -- but isn't extending
without being compatible something only Microsoft
At 9:30 AM -0400 6/29/01, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
But I'm disturbed that Exchange is using the Precedence: line as its
selector mechanism. I'm hardly an email expert, but a quick grep
through the RFCs turned up exactly one mention of the Precedence:
header line. That reference is in 2076,
At 12:00 PM -0500 5/22/01, Chip Rosenthal wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:00:49PM +0200, Maurizio Codogno wrote:
I hope someone may give me an answer here, even if the topic is
not quite in topic for the list.
Don't have an answer to your question, but thought I'd point out
that most of
At 4:54 PM -0400 5/20/01, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
When you are the maintainer of a list
That assumes that someone is the maintainer of the IETF mailing list.
At this moment, that is not the case. You are asking that an
additional task be put on one of the IETF Secretariat folks. That's
a
At 12:52 PM -0500 3/22/01, William Allen Simpson wrote:
None of the Mac folks I've talked to have had any success with the
wireless DHCP. We have to hand configure.
You must run in a different circle of IETF Mac users. None of the
many that I know (including me) had any problem.
--Paul
At 10:30 PM -0500 1/24/01, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
PS: Those of you with sharp eyes will notice that everything has a class A
address!
...and that some of those addresses still work, and appear to be used
by folks directly related to the original owners. If only URLs could
be so persistent...
At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote:
One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results
but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the
results if you don't get a very significant response rate
The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to be
Ed, why do you insist on advertising your patent-pending voting
solution on the IETF mailing list? It does not involve any IETF
protocol work, does it?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
At 9:44 AM -0800 12/20/00, Christian Huitema wrote:
I have a simpler point about logistics. What we are doing in the IETF
nowadays is downright dangerous. Prevalence of the laptops means that
the room is criss-crossed with power cables. Lack of room means that the
alleys are packed with standing
At 1:54 PM -0600 12/20/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
both on the web site.
It is important to note that the Tao is being substantially upgraded
and has lots of new material specifically aimed at dealing with some
of the
Just to be clear, Pete's idea does not preclude giving newcomers to
the meeting context. Instead of the 5 minutes for agenda bashing and
then straight into presentations, the WG chair can spend 15 minutes
saying what the group is doing, where the WG is and is not meeting
its charter, and the
WG chair says "OK, the room is now over-full. Who are there people in
the doorway or outside who intend to work actively on drafts or
forming the charter for this group? I see seven hands up. Could
fourteen people who are currently sitting or jammed up against a wall
who do *not* already plan
One more time with feeling: please take this discussion to the IDN
WG's mailing list. It has no place on the main IETF mailing list, and
it needs to be discussed where the people working on the protocol are
working.
Of course, one might want to read the WG's archive before posting to
the
At 7:06 PM -0500 12/5/00, Dan Kolis wrote:
Now we are getting down to the nuts and bolts
No, we're not. This is a long re-hash of unfinished discussions
happening in the IDN Working Group. As was requested earlier in this
thread, please go read the archives of the IDN WG, and if you have
OK, we have now reached 20 messages from armchair lawyers on
trademark law. Given the earlier threads this year from armchair
lawyers on patents, that leaves us just two months for us to have a
ponderous thread on trade secrets, and we will have covered the main
parts of intellectual property
At 2:19 PM -0700 9/26/00, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 07:56 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
Beg to differ. Encapsulation makes the VPN virtual.
Encryption ensures that the VPN is private.
All networks are privately managed, whether virtual or not; referring
to that explicitly seems a bit
A recent editorial in Microprocessor Report (a pricey but very useful
newsletter) covers an interesting patent tussle in the RAM market. It
is relevant to the IETF process in that the features that were
patented were put into the standards process while the patent owner
silently moved the
At 04:46 PM 4/14/00 +, Bob Braden wrote:
There IS no dark conspiracy here, just people devoting CONSIDERABLE
time and energy (without stock options, I might add) to making the
internet work.
A great idea! Stock options in the RFC Editor function!
- A hot startup of about 25 years (in real
Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? The IETF handed off
responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago. If the reason is to show
people that someone has a beef with the way that the W3C is handling HTML,
that point has been made.
(I can already picture certain IETF folks
68 matches
Mail list logo
