> The only
> way to obtain device upload does not even involve the INPUT tag
> (on Windows' MSIE, the OBJECT tag is used with an insecure
> "ActiveX" binary; on Netscape Navigator under Windows, the EMBED
> tag is used with a similarly insecure arrangement where the user
> must "Grant All" s
Line noise transmitted the message below unattributed; my apologies
to Braden McDaniel.
>> [JPS:] The only
>> way to obtain device upload does not even involve the INPUT tag
>> (on Windows' MSIE, the OBJECT tag is used with an insecure
>> "ActiveX" binary; on Netscape Navigator under Windows,
At 03:32 PM 3/3/00 +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:
>The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation
>with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague.
It seems quite clear to me. You might want to suggest alternative wording
that you think is clearer.
> No wonder, if t
Call for Papers
-
We apologize if you receive this message more than once.
This represents a change of dates due to
At 12:57 PM 2/15/00 +1030, Mark Prior wrote:
>The package being offered is a WaveLAN IEEE Turbo 11Mbps PC card for
>AU$276.36 (approx US$175). Drivers are available from Lucent for (at
>least) Windows 95, 98, NT, CE, 2000, MacOS and Linux.
Searching for "WaveLAN" at a catalog site shows (prices
> At 12:57 PM 2/15/00 +1030, Mark Prior wrote:
> >The package being offered is a WaveLAN IEEE Turbo 11Mbps PC card for
> >AU$276.36 (approx US$175). Drivers are available from Lucent for (at
> >least) Windows 95, 98, NT, CE, 2000, MacOS and Linux.
I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff, but a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writ
es:
>
> This is the same card as an Apple Airport. It is 802.11 DS, 11Mbps, and
> supports Wire Equivalent Privacy (WEP). The idea here is that you need a key
> to
> get on the network, but once you're on you can see all the traffic "on the
Hello:
First of all, it is not over until the RFC-Editor sings :^.
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>> The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation
>> with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague.
> It seems quite clear to me. You might want to suggest alternative wording
>
