is getting closest to making sense.
Cheers...\Stef
At 17:06 +0200 21/06/01, TOMSON ERIC wrote:
The best doesn't always win.
The cheapest often does.
Look at VHS over Betamax.
Look at Token Ring over Ethernet.
:o)
-Original Message-
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
And so
Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that
have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.
They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that
this be done by others.
Well;-)... A really good discussion has occurred;-)...
Gordon and Brian got it right in terms of my intentions.
Let me clarify.
Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption
of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as
long as all work to be
:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that
have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.
They have done this with good results
Hi Keith and all --
I have had my say, and will now exit the set,
so you can return to your preferred programs;-)...
I am an IETF outsider now by unilateral personal choice,
but I still truly love the basic principles that drove
the Internet while I was a directly engaged participant.
And I am
This solves the wrong problem.
The problem is that the autoreply out of office thingy responds
directly to the submitter of the listserved message, not to the
listserver, so there is no filterable contact between the autoreply
and the list server.
Cheers...\Stef
At 14:40 +0100 29/06/01,
Aye, Verily! Here! Here! Let's Hear it For MicroSoft!
At 12:09 -0400 30/07/01, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:17:48AM -0700, Mark Durham wrote: I'm doing
the same. This is situation is absurd, and an embarrassment to the
IETF. Those I've mentioned it to (some of whom are
Does anyone remember the trick of breaking a single huge message into
smaller parts, to be reassembled by he final recipient?
Its called fragmentation, as I recall.
Marshall Rose implemented in his version of the RAND MH mail system.
I think this is a better solution to the whole
