RE: Mailing list policy
Perhaps you might consider this issue from another angle. When you consider the number of person-hours spent dealing with SPAM, you could see that, cumulatively, there are many hours wasted on unsolicited and undesired emails. And, while each instance may be a matter of seconds or minutes, over a year's time, SPAM from all sources constitutes a significant waste of people's time and, thus, the SPAMer is a thief. It is a social problem but it can be resolved with a technical solution. Don't make me come over there, Scott.. :-) Hey, what do we need this IP stuff for? We got 300 character/second teletype. Who's ever going to need more than that?... - Sparky, the 30 year two-wire man. -Original Message- From: Willis, Scott L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Mailing list policy Which is the lesser of the two evils: * Receiving an occasional SPAM Message * Being Bombarded continually with complaints about SPAM Messages The request has been issued to stop spamming on this address. Why don't we return to normal IETF business at hand and just let this issue pass. I'm sure there are others out there who is as fatigued as I am about this moot point. Have a nice day -Original Message- From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Mailing list policy Kevin Farley wrote: --- John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today, if you want to spam all of them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. (I spoke sloppily, by the way. For today, read with separate filters on every list.) Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be automated. If that's so, then subscriber filters won't work; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, the spamware vendors will include automated subscription features. -- /===\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |==| |eCal Corp. |Whose cruel idea was it for the word lisp to| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|have an S in it? | \===/
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Geez, the nerve of some people :-) If I'm not mistaken, there have been all too many international efforts to advance this TORPEDO protocol. Several years ago, there were several Germans who took the lead in this field with some similar efforts from several Japanese. Eventually, the US protocol specialists prevailed, when supplemented by the use of other protocols, but the protocol was not submitted as an RFC and eventually fell into disfavor. It was determined from empirical data gathered from field trials that the time and expense of recovering (defragmenting) the packets far exceeded the benefit of utilizing the transport media in certain networks. This met the design criteria of the protocol. However, this protocol was based on a discrimination algorithm, referred to as WLOPWHYP (We Like Our Packets, We Hate Your Packets). Any invocation of this protocol in one direction was likely to elicit an disproportionate invocation of this protocol in the other direction. I'm glad to see we've managed to effect the more egalitarian algorithm MPOKYPOK (My Packet's OK, Your Packet's OK.) Personally, I believe it would significantly add to mine, and many other people's, happiness if we could all go to our deathbeds knowing the TORPEDO protocol never reached the status of an RFC (marginal acceptance may be possible if that RFC was submitted on April 1), and ever saw use in the field again. Now, back to our regularly scheduled show already in progress.. -Original Message- From: Betsy Brennan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:11 PM To: Ben Yalow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway I'm sure this is a stupid question (and I will probably get flamed for this email), but what does this have to do with the IETF? Ben Yalow wrote: At 05:00 PM 4/26/01 -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote: Willis, Scott L wrote: Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship! Swing the 16 guns and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for it. Errr, actually carriers don't have 16 guns, the battleships did. There *were* smaller caliber turrents on the older (e.g. WWII Essex class) carriers for antiaircraft work, and the newer carriers have such things as Phalanx for the same reason, but definitely not something as big as 16. Now, sending off a flight of F-15s with laser guided weapons on the other hand... Actually, while the Essex class carried some smaller guns (5, and then lots of smaller caliber), the largest guns on US carriers were on Lexington (CV-2), and Saratoga (CV-3). Since they were originally laid down as battle cruisers, and later converted to carriers, they still had 8 8 guns. - peterd Ben - Ben Yalow[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Hmm, does this mean we need a BOF to determine if there is a need for a ShipsInTheDay protocol or if the ShipsInTheNight protocol would be adequate for the job (with a few extensions of course)? Are we sure that ATM would be desirable in this instance? Personally, I think this sounds like a job for IPv9 Man.if I'm not mistaken, each semaphore/signal flag will require it's own IP address so as to have the capability to report usage stats via SMNPvx, at least... But I must state it is so rewarding to see the enthusiasm being generated by this thread. I will no longer tolerate anyone saying the IETF is not sensitive or responsive to the needs of the user community.. Are our days so dull..? :-) -Original Message- From: Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Or is this a case of ShipsIntheNight % % .dark fiber optics..based on Dense Wavelength % Division Multiplexing.. layed 2 km below the surface % of the sea... oh factor in high/low tide ... % % --Original Message- % -From: Pat Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM % -To: Robert G. Ferrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % -what type of media do you propose to run ISBP over? % -- Original Message - % -From: Robert G. Ferrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % -Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:13 PM % -Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway % - % - % - And of *course*, you want the bridge and the ship to be % -using some sort % - of IM Presence protocol so each knows the other is there % - % - This is a perfect application for the ISBP (Intraship % -Bridge Protocol)... % - % - RGF % - % -- --bill
RE: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Look, over a year ago, I was made painfully aware of the of the automated vacation notice propagating emails to members of lists. It was never my intent to inconvenience anyone by using the vacation notices function, rather just the opposite. I'm an Outlook user as it's the corporate standard on PCs and I would welcome information concerning any other mail package that would interact appropriately with an Outlook Exchange server that would include the capability to specify email ids which would be excepted from the automatic response function. It is plainly evident that Microsoft considers the inconvenience of the IETF, and other similarly organized groups, and the resultant negation of the value of this feature as small potatoes. Just how many lines of code and hours of testing would it take to make this a smooth feature? Probably not as many as have been lost for all the people who have had to deal the effluent. -Original Message- From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 11:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: guidance (re: social event politeness) From: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another common curtesy issue this thread has raised is vacation scripts... I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing list who have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a vaction script on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing list while you're gone, use procmail to filter your lists so they don't get caught by your vacation script, or just don't use vacation... It's far from all vacation mechanisms that do the evil deed. If you look at the headers, you'll almost certainly find a telltale line of the form: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (... All ordinary submissions with that black mark should be rejected. All requests sent to IETF list control addresses should be interpreted as unsubscribe requests. This would not purge the lists of the current abusers (those who insist on using that junkware and abusing the rest of us), but it would reduce their proliferation and encourage some to switch reasonable MUA's. If the IETF doesn't try to enforce minimal standards where it affects the business of the IETF, then the junkware vendors will never bother to fix their junk. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.) to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into lower cost.. :-) My apologies in advance for polluting the IETF announce list. Btw, did we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-) -Original Message- From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
