Re: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists

2002-03-17 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 

Oh goodie! We get to chat about the other IAB -- Internet Advertizing Bureau.
(http://www.iab.net)

Reading Mr. Kehres back-to-front.

Is in-list spam in-scope for poisson? Yup. Is there a venue for general spam?
Yup (April's got it).

Would adopting an opt-in regime in the US improve things? Yup. (spam TTL = 3)

Is everything a horrible muddle so nothing is clearly worth depricating? Noo,
but that is a nice try.

Cheers,
Eric (ex-engage, where cookies were baked, users tracked, and marketing made)

Re: Revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM

2002-01-25 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 

James,

I'm going to differ with my learned colleges Dave and Paul. There may be
points of 2727 and draft 2727bis that have the potential to benefit from
deference until the current nomcom has done its job, but from my reading
not all of them fall into that bin. In particular, I don't see how this,
or any other nomcom membership could have anything compelling to offer on
external liaisons (ISOC), disputes regarding selection of nomcom members,
announcements, and recall, or any of the six enumerated items.

Eric

Fwd: Indianz.com NEWS BRIEFS: APRIL 1, 2001

2001-04-02 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 

Not having seen an RFC come over the transom yesterday or today, here is an
alternative.

http://216.218.205.86/april1.asp

Enjoy,
Eric

Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

2001-02-16 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 

David,

Ron Natalie and I renumbered hq.af.mil the week of the Loma Prieta quake.

List the NAT implementations deployed at the time.

The point you'll have made is that an-aide-to-renumbering NATs weren't.

If they are marketed now as such, happy, but not necessary, is the marketeer.

Eric

Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

2001-02-15 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 

David,

 IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, 
 not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4).  Until 
 that issue is addressed, there will be NATs.  Even for v6.

Odd. Every time I renumbered some site (hq.af.mil and sundry other sites
sharing similar characteristics), there was neither a NAT prior to, nor
subsequent to, the renumbering.

I suggest that renumbering pre-existed, and did not motivate, NATtage of
the NET.

Eric