On Feb 21, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-02-18 13:46, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If this was effective, blacklists would have solved the spam
problem.
They are 90% effective
You what? Which Internet would that be?
Blacklists
The question Brian raised is not the percentage of spam that blacklists catch,
it's the false positive rate.
The core problem with blacklists is that they attempted to impose
accountability on others without accepting accountability themselves. Some
blacklist perpetrators even boasted about the
To help Pekka here, from an operator's perspective the difference
between 'control' and 'management' is quite blurred, as long as the same
type of functionality happens in an operational deployment. Speaking as
an individual I believe that your approach may be correct, but it's
better that the rela
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Blacklists at the level of sending domains (or reputation systems
> that function like blacklists) are a failure.
I was talking about IP address blacklists. Perhaps 90% was a bit
over-optimistic - my stats from cam.ac.uk show more than 80% of spam
We had not considered the control framework to be a management framework.
Rather, we see it as a repeatable design pattern for how to find and
establish protocol connections to a media server. What indicates that it is
a management protocol? We do expect to use existing SNMP methods for the
input
Cullen Jennings schrieb:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an
incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter
("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix.
(se
On 2007-02-18 13:46, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If this was effective, blacklists would have solved the spam problem.
They are 90% effective
You what? Which Internet would that be?
Blacklists at the level of sending domains (or reputation systems
On 2007-02-19 00:57, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 06:29 PM 2/18/2007, Janet P Gunn wrote:
My guidebook says 6 months.
Feel free to argue with the US State Dept.. :-)
The US State Dept web info is inconsistent with the Czech Embassy
web info. We are trying to get definite confirmation from
an
On 2007-02-20 15:31, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
I assume that you also have no objection on using the DSCP fields for
this purpose.
actually, I do, at least in some ways that they might be used. The AF
service (RFC 2597) is specifically design
On 2007-2-20, at 11:51, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the
packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that
it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the
mutually trusting network components would have
10 matches
Mail list logo
