-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/05/2011, at 1:33 PM, George Bonser wrote:
f there are 10,000 Comcast subscribers watching exactly the same live
event on the net, sending 10,000 streams of exactly the same data is
dumb and it doesn't have to be that way.
IMHO,
It's
On 5/3/2011 6:17 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 2, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
It's perhaps worth noting that there is work in the IETF to recommend that every
prefix originated as part of an anycast cloud uses a unique origin AS
On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all.
Err, yes it is.
The
resolver just promises to ignore any ancillary record sets it does not
understand.
How people implement RFC 3225 does differ from the intent of the author,
On 5/2/2011 4:11 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jeroen van Aartjer...@mompl.net wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:27:34 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
It surprised me because I, perhaps naively, assumed IT workers in general
have a rather
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
This probably isn't the right venue for this discussion.
Hi David,
I'm going to go with Mark's answer: nameservers that don't set TC
[truncated bit] when they can't fit glue are broken RFC 1034. When
that happens to be
Multicast is an elegant solution to a dwindling problem set.
And that is fundamentally where we disagree. I see this as not
elegant at all. It is a fundamental part of the protocol suite. It
is no more elegant than unicast. I also believe that it will be the
wireless operators that bring
* David Conrad:
On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all.
Err, yes it is.
I know you think it is, but you're wrong if you look at the overall
protocol.
If DO were about DNSSEC, a new flag would have been
introduced
At 18:53 +0200 5/3/11, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Conrad:
On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all.
Err, yes it is.
I know you think it is, but you're wrong if you look at the overall
protocol.
This is
Hi Folks,
I'm seeing TXT messages leaving our network to @txt.att.net and
@tmomail.netusers. The messages look very spammy. I'm wondering if
there have been any
complaints of TXT spam from the IP address 66.36.240.39 (messages are From:
davidba...@tmsg4.com).
I have examples if you are
Unlike the US of A, here in Australia the industry has gone *very* heavily
down the path of requiring/expecting certification. They have bought into
the faith that unless your resume includes CC?? you're worthless.
There are colleges (er, I mean training businesses) who will *guarantee*
you will
10 matches
Mail list logo
