No problem. We all come across this here and there. We all fail 100 times or
more but perception will always be key in how we obtain a final objective that
benefits everyone.
Thomas Edison failed thousands of times but of all those times his success only
came from the knowledge of those so man
Jason, Your comment is one of the best I have seen in this thread.
Thanks for the input and being neutral.
Honestly, you feel very highly of your work in which any of us do in this field
but John has a very good point and constructive criticism shroud not be the
down fall of anyone. Read it 100 times without taking any thought of your own
work and try to see the whole picture.
Not agreeing with John
>
> You'd probably do the world a favor if you spent that month instead
> finding mail
> software that does quoting and attribution correctly. You've made several
> posts
> that quoted me, and then quoted others in such a way that it looked like I
> said it.
Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'll pay att
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:57:26 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> Guys, I can't able to disclose my work at this point. But I'm happy to
> publish my work again next month. In the meantime, I have no issues if you
> all think my work is bad.
You'd probably do the world a favor if you spent
Ok guys, let's stop the discussion on this thread.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 5:00 AM Ross Tajvar wrote:
> Viruthagiri,
>
> You are being too defensive. You've made this discussion about whether or
> not someone is attacking you, rather than the merit of your idea. It is not
> about networking or m
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 04:51:40 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Rest assured that if he was actually trying to silence your work you wouldn't
have been able to post your message to NANOG.
Viruthagiri,
You are being too defensive. You've made this discussion about whether or
not someone is attacking you, rather than the merit of your idea. It is not
about networking or mail anymore. Please end the conversation here.
-Ross
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 6:26 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Yes please, Thanks Mr. Cummings
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:56 AM Cummings, Chris wrote:
> Can we please have a mod step in and shut this thread down? Any
> conversation of value is long gone.
>
> /Chris
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM -0600, "Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan" <
> g...@dombox.or
>
> By the way, since that you've left no traces of whatever piece of work
> you've posted to that list. The website is empty, slides are removed
> from Speakerdeck, etc.
> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
Ye
Can we please have a mod step in and shut this thread down? Any conversation of
value is long gone.
/Chris
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM -0600, "Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan"
mailto:g...@dombox.org>> wrote:
I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Are you
I don't know why you are all try to defend a man who try to silence my work.
Are you saying this thread is necessary?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:46 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 12:51 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
> > 5 months back I posted my spam research on D
cts
--srs
From: NANOG on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 4:48 AM
To: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Cc: John Levine; nanog list
Subject: Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS
Proposal [Feedback Request]
On Sun, Jan 1
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 12:51 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
wrote:
> 5 months back I posted my spam research on DMARC list.
> You have gone through only 50 words and judged my work.
> The whole thread gone haywire because of you. I was
> humiliated there and left.
By the way, since that you've le
>
> Go and check how many of these match. Then ask yourself why you might
> be getting a poor reception on lists composed of people who do this stuff
> for a living.
Hello Mr. Kletnieks,
I have no problem when people criticising my work. I even dropped the idea
of port 26 because people like you
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:37:02 -0500, Eric Tykwinski said:
> even headers. My guess though is that if this gains traction, there will be a
> corresponding law like CALEA for LEO to intercept.
Hopefully *this* time we'll do it in such a way that LEO use will remain
higher than bad-guys use. I'm not
In my opinion, the problem isn’t that great. As others have stated, you can
locally enforce only STARTTLS on the receive connector or send connector
locally to ensure that only encrypted transmission occurs. If the MTA doesn’t
send/accept STARTTLS send an error message. That the host name is
I'm not sure why are being angry here.
For the record, this conversation isn't about TLS on port 26. It's about
STARTTLS downgrade protection on port 25.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:33 AM Brian Kantor wrote:
> From this point forward, all mail containing the phrase "TLS on
> port 26" in the Subje
>From this point forward, all mail containing the phrase "TLS on
port 26" in the Subject line will be shunted into my junk mail box,
unread, because I do not wish to see any more correspondence on
this matter.
'procmail' is my friend.
- Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 03:20:26AM +0530, Vir
Hello Mr. Levine,
5 months back I posted my spam research on DMARC list. You have gone
through only 50 words and judged my work. The whole thread gone haywire
because of you. I was humiliated there and left.
Last week I posted in IETF list. To be very honest, I don't like you.
That's because you
In article
you write:
>What IETF Mailing list thinks? - "Implicit TLS doesn't offer any additional
>security than a downgrade protected STARTTLS. Let's not waste a port."
He's forum shopping. He's already take this to two IETF lists and
we've explained to him why it's not a good idea.
If you w
21 matches
Mail list logo
