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.
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
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
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
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
s
I trust we will get a quick "hum" to the proposition that "truncating" the
v4addr to a /25 does not, in a dhcp, or in a static address regime, offer
a great deal of "privacy enhancement", given the effectiveness of profiling
and the sparsity of "like browsing sequences" at any collection moment.
