James,
JS> Is there any other hotel other then lotte which charge a reasonable rate?
I'll be staying at:
Best Western New Seoul Hotel
#29-1, 1-Ga, Tyaepyeong-No, Jung-Gu
Seoul, 100-101, Korea (South)
Phone: 82 2 735 8800
Fax: 82 2 735 6927
I'm told it is nearby the ietf venue.
The online comme
I know I shouldnt wait last minute to book but...
Is there any other hotel other then lotte which charge a reasonable rate?
-James Seng
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > If a complete stranger is the sender of an incoming message, then
> > > crypto keys are irrelevant to determining the message is unsolicited
> > > bulk.
> >
> > No. In PGP, for example, I accept a key based on who signed it
> From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If a complete stranger is the sender of an incoming message, then
> > crypto keys are irrelevant to determining the message is unsolicited
> > bulk.
>
> No. In PGP, for example, I accept a key based on who signed it and
> when. If I can trust the signer(s
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you reject the message during the SMTP session you don't need to
generate a bounce message, the other side will do this. So the
bandwidth waste is the same in both cases.
Not only that, bulk spammers (hacked or not) keep it in their queue and
not yours when
it
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> If a complete stranger is the sender of an incoming message, then
> crypto keys are irrelevant to determining the message is unsolicited
> bulk.
No. In PGP, for example, I accept a key based on who signed it and
when. If I can trust the signer(s), I may use a key fr
On 19-feb-04, at 14:47, Robert G. Brown wrote:
I actually think that the spamassasin/procmail combination above is
nearly ideal on the MUA side,
It is not, because:
1. Bandwidth is used up by spam (which is fortunately usually not that
big) and worms (which tend to be much bigger)
Bouncing thes
> From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes. However, if your mailbox could automatically handle confirmation
> requests based on messages that were actually sent by you (in much
> the same way that NAT boxes work -- you only get a reply to a request
> you send), then you would not be bothered by
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> If the envelope sender was forged as is common in spam, universal in
> worms, and practically nonexistent in legitimate mail, then your bounce
> will afflict third party's mailbox. My mailbox receives enough worm
> bounces to make me say it is an awfully bad thing.
Y
All quite sensible.
What I do on my personal mailbox, is
1) refile all mailing lists and well-known corrspondents
2) Select all of the remaining mail not to dean@ and not from mail
delivery and give it a once over for non-spam messages. These would be
wildcards from certain domai
Hi,
FYI, I've made an ical version of the agenda available at
http://www.icalx.com/public/larse/IETF-59.ics.
Apple iCal users can directly subscribe at
webcal://www.icalx.com/public/larse/IETF-59.ics. I hear this may work
with Mozilla as well, but I have no firsthand experience with that.
(A
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > I actually think that the spamassasin/procmail combination above is
> > nearly ideal on the MUA side,
>
> It is not, because:
>
> 1. Bandwidth is used up by spam (which is fortunately usually not that
> big) and worms (which tend to be much b
On 19-feb-04, at 1:18, Robert G. Brown wrote:
If a message comes in incorrectly addressed, yes, it will bounce. It
should, shouldn't it?
Yes, but only by ejecting the message immediately during the SMTP
session. Accepting the message, then realize it can't be delivered and
sending a bounce mess
13 matches
Mail list logo
