agree with most of what you said, however:
> Since bad guys can deduce addresses by scanning --and will certainly do so
> if we
> make it sufficiently hard for them to use the DNS-- this type of
> DNS change, it seems to me, would have little effect on the
> antisocial.
note that scanning is
Simon Josefsson skrev:
> Regarding -outbound section 4.3:
>
>IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
>processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF definitions,
>XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values,
>MIBs, ASN.1, or
Olaf Kolkman skrev:
>
>
> While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
> currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
>
> Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that the
> incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
That was my inter
Hi Vidya,
I think this is an excellent start. I'll put some applicability and
security considerations text together for the document for discussion on
the list.
Cheers,
Joe
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya
> Se
--On Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:00 PM -0700 Doug Ewell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>> A valid technical concern is easy to deal with. If they
>> provide an idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair
>> might insist on knowing their real name and company
>> affiliation
Theodore Tso wrote:
> A valid technical concern is easy to deal with. If they provide an
> idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair might insist on knowing
> their real name and company affiliation, since there have been past
> examples where companies have tried to inject patented technol
I'm no longer going to comment on the mail aspects of this MX
debate on the IETF list -- see the ietf-smtp list. But there is
an issue here with much broader implications...
--On Monday, March 31, 2008 9:36 AM +1000 Mark Andrews
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> It's a natural back port
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
> ...
>> And how do we provide suggestions to the Trustees in a formal mann
I think more important is that the cited intent when this thread was
warming up was that we were asking the Trust to NOT IMPOSE any
restrictions on code examples WHICH WEREN'T already present from
the contributor of the example. ANY license imposed by the Trust
would likley conflict with that inte
Hi -
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
...
> And how do we provide suggestions to the Trustees in a formal manner?
...
If it's only a suggestio
Ted Hardie wrote:
> We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
> cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
> or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
> all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
> or, even bett
>
> So, a domain name erroneously appears in an address field and the references
> host erroneously accepts mail it shouldn't.
>
> This degree of problematic operation is not likely to get solved with a new
> DNS
> construct.
this specific problem will get solved with a simplification of how
At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
>licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
>If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
>then we have at least two problems. We wo
>
>
> Ned Freed wrote:
> >> Indeed, if you asked
> >> a random sampling of those groups --remembering that there are a
> >> huge number of SMTP servers in the world, only a tiny fraction
> >> of which are professional operations and with an even smaller
> >> fraction being large-scale, carefully
Folks,
This thread has moved to the ietf-smtp mailing list, where I suspect it belongs.
We should avoid have two different venues for this discussion, so I suggest
further postings be on the ietf-smtp mailing list.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
> > if you have wild and wonderful new features, write drafts,
> > introduce them as separate, Proposed Standard, updates to
> > 2821 that stand on their own, with their own justifications.
>
> For one of the two discussed proposals, nullmx, that would be
> easy enough,
>> to non-mail domains is significant. I have at least one host name
>> that was never a mail domain, but since it used to appear in usenet
>> headers it gets over 30,000 spams a day, every day.
>
>I'm not convinced you've identifed causality ... only correlation.
The causality is that its name w
Keith Moore wrote:
>> The argument from somebody saying that his "by name"
>> API hides IPv4 vs. IPv6 details as it should,
> The presumption that the API "should" hide the
> differences between IPv4 and IPv6 is a dubious one.
> IPv4 and IPv6 really do act differently, for a
> variety of reas
On 29 Mar 2008, John Levine wrote:
> to non-mail domains is significant. I have at least one host name
> that was never a mail domain, but since it used to appear in usenet
> headers it gets over 30,000 spams a day, every day.
I'm not convinced you've identifed causality ... only correlation.
>
> If an incorrect domain name is in an author or return handling
> address, there are bigger problems to solve than /MX.
Indeed, this is the problem - the problem is that such
misconfiguration doesn't get detected since the address *seems* to
work just fine.
>
>> The mail is "received
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> One of the problems I have seen first-hand is "disappearing" mail.
> Example: A webserver sends outbound email directly, but doesn't want
> to receive inbound email. The hostname leaks and mail gets sent to
> that address, based on the A(AAA) record.
What do y
I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
then we have at least two problems. We would have to confirm that X, Y,
and Z all met our go
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> We disagree here. I believe the IETF has a responsibility to
> chose a license that works well for a large majority of
> Internet users. To some extents, the IETF needs to cater for
> organizations that make up parts of the Internet.
Users include authors of RFCs as w
Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 7:30 PM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > These are interesting points, but maybe not interesting in the way
>>> you intended. If some large group (in this example, the Debian folks)
>>> want to ha
At 7:30 PM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > These are interesting points, but maybe not interesting in the way
>> you intended. If some large group (in this example, the Debian folks)
>> want to have some restriction on what they can use in thei
Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:15 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>>requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>>that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>
> At 11:25
"Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Simon,
>
>> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>>
>> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software l
At 11:15 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
At 11:25 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>There ar
Hi, Simon,
> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>
> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software license, which I read Ray's message
> to imply was being
I'm cc'ing ietf@ietf.org since others may have the same question.
"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll leave it up to others to comment on list, but you did not
> actually answer the question.
> How is it possible to write a license that lets anyone use the code
> any way they wan
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon,
>
> On 2008-03-29 22:10, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ...
>> this? However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG,
>
> I don't believe it is appropriate for an IETF BCP to contain
> an open-ended dependency on whatever future requir
31 matches
Mail list logo
