Good Morning Valdis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks;vt.edu]
Sent: 29 October 2002 15:39
To: Sean Jones
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Palladium (TCP/MS)
You're close. You'd want this for multihomed servers, so a
PTR query works
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:48:35 GMT, Sean Jones said:
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought email was handled by Mail eXchange (MX)
records, thus a PTR would not be required?
Just because an MTA follows an MX to find where to send a piece of mail
doesn't mean that other things don't use PTR records
Sean Jones wrote:
I understand where I went wrong. But I doubt that any commercial enterprise would want to block access to MS servers in RL.
Well, it'd be a good way to inhibit people from sneaking Windows into
the company.
--
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:10:59 EST, John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sean Jones wrote:
I understand where I went wrong. But I doubt that any commercial enterprise would
want to block access to MS servers in RL.
Well, it'd be a good way to inhibit people from sneaking Windows into
the
Good Afternoon again Valdis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks;vt.edu]
Sent: 01 November 2002 13:35
To: Sean Jones
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Palladium (TCP/MS)
Received: from mm_w2k1.micromedical.local
(mailgate.peakflowmeter.co.uk
Wha? they go outlaw windows? Shareholders wont do non of that in realm of
lawsuits because M$ the media done a good job at brain neutering the masses and
furthering intellectual ejemitysp in the schools. Damn, I taking cis-2 and they
concentrate in M$ details of operation and not on raw
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:30:34 GMT, Sean Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You might think about where peakflowmeter came from
I cheat with Exchange 2000. I manage a number of domains, and in order to
make my job simpler, I have all of these domains forwarded to one domain via
my ISP, then
No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
^
a hash of
place as the private key, at the same time.
I've seen people *who operate CAs* lose sight of the fact that it's
the hash
Good Morning Valdis
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:37:44 BST, Sean Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why is a PTR (or DNS) record with MS TCP different from the
standard TCP/IP record?
(Perhaps it is me in my ignorance, or lack of understanding :o) )
It's not different. Or in any case,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:54:02 GMT, Sean Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when
one will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net etc In
short the Microsoft-verse.
You're close. You'd want this for
.net is a suite of coding publishing tools. maybe should throw together a .org
suite of freeware coding tools?
10/29/02 2:54:02 AM, Sean Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Morning Valdis
I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want to
sound thick when
: Palladium (TCP/MS)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Christopher Evans wrote:
.net is a suite of coding publishing tools. maybe should throw
together a .org suite of freeware coding tools?
what, like www.gnu.org? www.fsf.org?
where have you been?
L.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood
On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 03:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:17:29 +1200, Franck Martin said:
Note that you can set your exchange server to convert s/mime messages
automatically... On my exchange 5.5 in the Internet connector there is an
This is, of course, assuming
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:38:50 +1200, Franck Martin said:
The question of a global PKI is to remove anonymity. You can trace back
to a real person (legal person) from the certificate. Who can offer
No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
place as the private key,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:35:52 CST, Matt Crawford said:
The question of a global PKI is to remove anonymity. You can trace back
to a real person (legal person) from the certificate. Who can offer
No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
Title: RE: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
I agree with you, I found many more applications that
do not support s/mime cf SSL-Certificates HOWTO on www.tldp.org.
However, you can sign messages in s/mime clear text,
which works the same as PGP by encapsulating the message in clear inside
Title: Message
As
this thread is becoming more and more technical, may I suggest to limit it from
now on to the IETF list and then to stop cc:ing the ISDF
list...
-Original Message-From: Franck Martin
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I agree with you, I found many more
F == Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
F ...Anyone who sends me e-mail can be identified. Anything I
F send can be traced to me. People wouldn't be forced to
F participate, but if they remain anonymous, I might choose to
F block them. I certainly wouldn't accept file
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:17:29 +1200, Franck Martin said:
Note that you can set your exchange server to convert s/mime messages
automatically... On my exchange 5.5 in the Internet connector there is an
This is, of course, assuming you are willing or able to use an exchange server.
Not all the
Murphy [mailto:garym;canada.com]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 11:19
To: Franck Martin
Cc: 'TOMSON ERIC'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
Isn't that PGP?
___
Isdf mailing list
[EMAIL
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:00:51 EDT, John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That doesn't necessarily follow. I read a report (*) today that the
EULA for XP/SP1 and 2000/SP3 states that, if you use automatic updates,
you grant MS, and its designated agents, access to your software
Title: RE: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
MS promises S/MIME support in their next release, which would be Dec or Mar or Jun or... Currently, Outlook Web Access doesn't know S/MIME, so certificate use is not possible. It is possible to read a signed email and to retrieve the attachment
At 08:40 AM 10/22/2002 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Again, other big organizations (specifically including Cisco) are not
above embracing-and-extending out of ignorance, provincialism, and
failures to bother to do interoperability testing (possible causes of
the Microsoft PPP hassles) if not
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:37:44 BST, Sean Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why is a PTR (or DNS) record with MS TCP different from the standard TCP/IP record?
(Perhaps it is me in my ignorance, or lack of understanding :o) )
It's not different. Or in any case, it's not sufficiently different to
to take his lunch and eat it rather than feeding
trolls)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-ietf;IETF.ORG] On Behalf Of Sean
Jones
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
Good Morning Valdis
Thank you for your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And anyhow, using a router block is a bad idea in this case. There's two
cases - either you still have machines using that vendor's software, and you
WANT them to reach the servers so they can update,
That doesn't necessarily follow. I read a report (*) today that
Christian Huitema wrote:
Your fears appear to be based more on emotions than facts. To the best
of my knowledge, the TCP/IP stack that ships in Windows conforms to
the IETF standards and interoperates with the stacks that ship on
other platforms -- it is certainly meant to. Several Microsoft
Thus spake Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian Huitema wrote:
Your fears appear to be based more on emotions than facts. To the best
of my knowledge, the TCP/IP stack that ships in Windows conforms to
the IETF standards and interoperates with the stacks that ship on
other platforms --
--On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 08:52:17 -0500 Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft's application protocols (e.g. CIFS aka NetBIOS, Kerberos) are
certainly problematic, but I've heard no complaints about their IP stack
in several years.
Also, this entire paranoia stems AFAICT
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
OTOH, does anyone have any evidence Microsoft is attempting to embrace and
extend at or below the transport layer? This smells like a reporter's
paranoia.
Microsoft's application protocols (e.g. CIFS aka NetBIOS, Kerberos) are
certainly
access-list 100 deny ip 207.46.230.218 0.0.0.0 12.246.56.92 0.0.0.0 gt 1
access-list 100 permit ip any any
oh well. :)
10/21/02 9:37:42 AM, Haren Visavadia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Microsoft can not produce secure products, what chance is there of
them producing a secure protocol?
IETF is
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:42:03 BST, Sean Jones said:
Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck do you mean?
% dig -x 207.46.230.218
;; ANSWER SECTION:
218.230.46.207.in-addr.arpa. 2665 INPTR microsoft.com.
218.230.46.207.in-addr.arpa. 2665 INPTR microsoft.net.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:18:59 +0200, TOMSON ERIC said:
And suppose that the majority of PC users connected to the Internet stop
using TCP/IP and replace it with TCP/MS...
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to just how fast users will
bail on Microsoft if they install TCP/MS and then
Microsoft doesn't have much control over the Internet.
Well, Microsoft has some reponsiblity since they produce some the server
software and client software.
Haren Visavadia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft doesn't have much control over the Internet.
Well, Microsoft has some reponsiblity since they produce some the server
software and client software.
I certainly assume that MSN has control of its products and the quality there-of, and
so
35 matches
Mail list logo
