1) Have you brought this up with the mailman folks? I've interacted with
them and they seem like a responsive set of folks. I'm sure that
this sort
of thing would horrify them.
2) 3 years since the last backup? Oi.
Mike
Glen wrote:
All -
I was asked by the IAOC to post a message
Andy Bierman wrote:
> I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
> the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
> in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented
> a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
> I am among the
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Russ,
>
>
>> When IETF lists are housed somewhere other than ietf.org, they are
>> supposed to include an archive recipient so that there is an archive
>> available at ietf.org (perhaps in addition to the one kept at the
>> place where the list is housed).
>>
>>
>
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT),
> Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>
>> Ole guessed
>>
>>> My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
>>> "who was in the room" which I think is largely used to plan room
>>> capacities for the next meeting.
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
> > believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged.
>
> (Responding to th
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
> > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
> > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
> > op
Dave Crocker wrote:
> Mostly, we agree on these points. Handled properly, placing review items in
> an
> issues list can be helpful to all parties, as long as each issue is clearly
> stated and possible resolutions or constructive guidance are included.
>
> One caveat: Sometimes it is the aggr
Andrew Newton wrote:
> To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
>
> My experience with Gen-ART reviews has been very positive, and I
> appreciate your work and effort. I realize you weren't seeking public
> praise, but your volunteer contribution to the good of the IE
My $.02 -- the new list software being used was using a new version
of Mailman that was stripping DKIM signatures out (which will be
fixed in later versions of Mailman). I contacted the support folks with
a config patch to stop doing that and it was implemented a day later.
I'd say that's pretty da
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> More heresy: maybe we should work on hacks to TCP to allow it to
>> have non-reliable e2e delivery so that it was more friendly to real time
>> protocols built on top of it.
>
> As you probably know folks absolutely have done this for exactly the
> reason you cite.
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> While I disagree with Jonathan's assertion that we should insert an
>> entirely useless (for all but NAT) UDP header in front of all new
>> protocols we design,
>>
>
> Well, I'd hardly characterize, "allowing it to work acros
Lucy Lynch wrote:
As an old multicast warrior and a long time NOC volunteer I'd point
out that we've been eating our own dog food for years. The world
didn't end and the network never melted completely ;-). All the fine
folks involved in *hard* technologies like DNSSEC, DKIM, mobility,
multi
Keith Moore wrote:
the problem I have with DKIM filtering is that it is only effective
for domains that can reasonably insist that all of the mail
originated by users at that domain go through that domain's
submission servers. this is a corner case, not the general case.
Back in the
Keith Moore wrote:
the problem I have with DKIM filtering is that it is only effective for
domains that can reasonably insist that all of the mail originated by
users at that domain go through that domain's submission servers. this
is a corner case, not the general case.
Back in the day, w
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking personally, I think annual reconfirmation is quite reasonable.
The message sent to the user should make it clear that it is an
annual process.
Except... the annual confirmation is probably going to get accidentally
deleted by a lot of people because they think
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:49 PM -0400 10/2/07, Russ Housley wrote:
1025 mail addresses have "confirmed" their address. I would bet that
at least 20% of the confirmed are spam addresses (or autoconfirmed
addresses)
Thoughts?
How was that 20% number guessed at?. If 200 spammers (or even 20!)
Keith Moore wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
which is why i'm proposing a standard of "demonstrable immediate harm" rather
than the current system of "that's not how you should do it" or "that's not
how i would do it".
That's the wrong standard, it sets the bar way too low. IETF shouldn't
Christian Huitema wrote:
There are a large number of protocol designs--even existing
protocols--which are compatible with the general paradigm of "user U
proves possession of password P to server A without giving A a
credential which can be used to impersonate U to server B".
HTTP Digest, TLS-PSK
Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On 8/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No reason to attack him like you did and I specifically want to address
this because mailing lists have a much larger audience than their
participants. If such attacks are not answered it creates barriers for
new
Sam Hartman wrote:
Ah. I must admit that I find the whole concept of informational
documents a heck of a lot less useful, but your reading of 2026 is of
course correct. I'll probably still end up treating informational
documents as close to ietf consensus statements (but not
recommendations) in
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Part of the problem may be historical: Requirement documents are a
relatively recent phenomena and likely postdate 2026. I suspect the
original intent of informational documents was to document non-IETF
protocols for the benefit of implementors, as well as record vari
Keith Moore wrote:
I have no problem breaking bounce/redirect. Yes, it has its uses, but
so do open relays, which we don't have anymore. The current levels of
mail abuse means that it's necessary to throw away a little baby with
the bathwater to keep the toxic waste out of the bath.
sorry,
Fred Baker wrote:
What we need to do is figure out how to let the intelligent network
core work cooperatively with the intelligent edge to let it do
intelligent things. Right now, the core and the edge are ships in the
night, passing and occasionally bumping into each other.
Isn't that the
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I have a slightly different take from John here.
My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that does the same thing
as SMTP but slightly better is a total non starter. No matter how much better
the protocol is the cost of transition will dominate.
The
Keith Moore wrote:
this is not a way to make the network more robust.
Robust for what? Spammers? The simple fact of the matter is that the
alternative is to just shut down port 25 given the growth in both volume
and complexity to filter. That ain't robust either. Dealing with false
p
Keith Moore wrote:
The communication system isn't being a filter, properly speaking - it
is simply routing some traffic to black holes using standard routing
technology. And it doesn't relieve the application of the burden of
filtering. But it can help reduce the volume of crapola at the
applicat
Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know that
there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in wg's
that you're only peripherally involved, etc. That in and of itself may h
Robert Sayre wrote:
Also from the draft:
"At least for the strong security requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365], the
Security Area, with the support of the IESG, has insisted that all
specifications include at least one mandatory-to-implement strong
security mechanism to guarantee universal interoper
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 17:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pa
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
(but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-15 18:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents,
contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says
"there is a problem here", but 5 WG members stand up
Thomas Narten wrote:
If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents,
contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says
"there is a problem here", but 5 WG members stand up and say "I
disagree and don't see a problem", do you really expect the security
exp
win, tails you lose' right?"
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The current process doesn't work very well when voting is required,
after hum-style consensus has been inconclusive.
Why should voting be required? If the goal is consensus,
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The current process doesn't work very well when voting is required,
after hum-style consensus has been inconclusive.
Why should voting be required? If the goal is consensus, "inconclusive"
shows that you haven't achieved it. Right? That seems to me that the
process is
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
One thing that occurs to me is that in my initial message I implicitly
felt that the room hands/hums were a more accurate assessment of
consensus than the list. I guess that I should fess up that I've always
felt tha
Andy Bierman wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in
an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
It promotes indecision and inaction.
Is there any human decision making process that has all of these
characteristics? Or that even
Andy Bierman wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Just following up here...
From: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The
mailing list verification has at least two properties that are more
important to the IETF: the archives provide
One thing that occurs to me is that in my initial message I implicitly
felt that the room hands/hums were a more accurate assessment of
consensus than the list. I guess that I should fess up that I've always
felt that the "consensus is determined on the list" is something of a
charming myth. Of co
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem with consensus is how you decide to count the undecideds/neutrals.
In most cases of controversy there will be a small group pro, a small group con
and the bulk of the WG will be somewhere inbetween. If the breakdown is
25%/25%/50% a biased chair can eff
hat relationship in doubt.
Mike
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:39 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG'; 'Dawson,Martin'; ietf@ietf.org; 'Allison Mankin'; 'John
Schniz
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP is not a great choice in a mobile environment and also not when
it comes to more complex location representations.
Why can't a mobile system have a locally valid DHCP record (+/- the
length
of a wireless link)? For t
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
are
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I strongly agree with John's reasoning here. But please keep reading...
[]
I really didn't want to take this off on this well trod tangent because
it was... pretty much a tangent. And I definitely didn't mean this turn
into some sort of grudgathon :)
Now, backing off a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael,
1. ADs physically don't have time to read intermediate drafts oustide
their own Area. So while they may suspect that a WG is heading in
a worrisome direction, they aren't in a position to do much about it.
2. ADs are collectively instructed by our rules to act
John C Klensin wrote:
If an AD who was responsible for a WG came up with an issue about that
WG's work and raised it only during or after Last Call, I'd expect
either a really good explanation or a resignation. I certainly would
not expect it to happen often. But, IMO, we have an IESG and, i
So what occurs to me is that a reasonable question to ask is whether
there are some legitimate success stories where a DISCUSS has actually
found big or reasonably big problems with a protocol that would have
wreaked havoc had they not been caught. I ask because it seems to me
that the main things
Dave Crocker wrote:
Bill Fenner wrote:
Mike,
Check out http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ and see if that gives
you the view you're looking for.
Bill, thanks. I suspect that's what Michael has in mind, except for
one minor enhancement: Put a link to that page on the working group's
main IETF pa
First I have to say that I really like the draft tracker, and kudos for
those responsible for making it happen. In fact, I like it so much that
it seems to me that it would be nice to have a link directly to it from
the working group page with its list of drafts. Ie:
draft-foowg-bardraft-00.txt
Keith Moore wrote:
I don't expect there to be very many standards based protocols in the
future that are not Web Services.
I've seen lots of fads come and go, and so far I've seen nothing to
convince me that Web Services is not yet another fad. Time will tell.
Angle brackets are now as inesc
-
--> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM
--> To: Michael Thomas
--> Cc: John C Klensin; Ned Freed; ietf@ietf.org; Eliot Lear
--> Subject: Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support
-->
--> >>>>> "Michael" == M
John C Klensin wrote:
(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be
triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a
vexatious appellant. People who are entering their
first appeals don't trigger it. People whose last
appeal was successful, even
todd glassey wrote:
I originally said two...and would prefer that.
What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or three instances
as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much different statement than figuring
who is in office now and who is eligible...As to what it prevents-career
Inter
Dave Crocker wrote:
Clint Chaplin wrote:
One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.
the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it. however the effort to
Is it just in my part of the ietf woods, or is this becoming a widespread
phenomenon? If so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
On the one hand, it can be really difficult to get a feel for consensus on
a mailing list where silence may mean agreement, boredom with the
topic, or just... silence
Keith Moore wrote:
I am still waiting to see a description of the defects you believe that you
have identified in either forum. I have asked you to describe them here several
times, you have refused.
And I've already partially explained why I'm not doing things that
way. But in additio
Keith Moore wrote:
No, Dave, you insisted on interrupting me and shouting me down when I tried
to raise these issues in the BOFs - doing your best to prevent me from making
my case.
We had three bof's, and Dave was a chair of bof #2 only.
And you're not just one voice, you are one of the do
Keith Moore wrote:
I also know that others have raised similar issues on the DKIM list
since then, and fairly recently. But the current documents don't
reflect any awareness of those issues or attempt to address
them. That's why I said "not listening".
We have from day one had an is
Keith Moore wrote:
I also know that others have raised similar issues on the DKIM list
since then, and fairly recently. But the current documents don't
reflect any awareness of those issues or attempt to address
them. That's why I said "not listening".
We have from day one had an issue tr
Keith Moore wrote:
There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts,
make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket
science.
That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to
good engineering discipline (e.g. th
Keith Moore wrote:
True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined rather than a stop-and-wait fashion. But part of the reason IETF's process is so slow is that the
only meaningful checks we place are at the end - so a working group typically labors to the point of exhau
Keith Moore wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:40 -0400
"Burger, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would offer that in *some* groups the running code bar is reasonable.
I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
feasibility of a new idea. I would object str
Keith Moore wrote:
I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
feasibility of a new idea. I would object strongly to an argument that
just because someone has running code, means it's a good indication of
adequacy of the protocol.
Specific examples aside, I agree
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
John,
You mean that we should update the current medieval print format to
take advantage of the best technology available to the Victorians?
Why go to all that trouble to create infrastructure to support an
obsolete document format when we can get
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:21:29PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
More precisely -- when something is sufficiently complex, it's inherently
bug-prone. That is indeed a good reason to push back on a design. The
question to ask is whether the *problem* is inherently com
David Harrington wrote:
I agree that complexity breeds bug-prone implementations.
I wasn't around then; did anybody push back on SNMPv1 as being too
complex? http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-03.html is mainly
about SNMPv1 implementations. ;-)
I wasn't there to push back, but when I g
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Is it possible to read content of the IETF lists (WG discussions,
announce, etc) as RSS feeds? I think the IETF doesn't provide it as
such, but is there maybe a gateway mailman-rss that would allow to read
it so?
Please excuse if the technical formulation is aberrant,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
"decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise,
Keith Moore wrote:
sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber)
more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am
surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see
what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to a
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option
>> which contained the service name - one well-known port would be the
>> "demux port", and which actual application you connected to would
Sounds a lot more like a distributed denial of service attack
to me.
Mike
Gray, Eric wrote:
Sounds to me like this comes under the Transport Area - at least
as far as flooding control is concerned. Avoidance of flooded
paths, on the other hand, might be a routing Area problem.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
found acceptable.
Without go
John Levine wrote:
Cue ten further emails describing various Google Earth mashups that
correlate restaurants with capacity, wait time and geek acceptability
If we could morph it into a signup system that distributed people
according to restauant capacity and avoided the problem that someone
s
It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophist
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[]
Sigh. Can I suggest that a little exponential backoff on
all parts may be appropriate? As one of the authors of the
dkim draft, this has been an extremely painful thread to
watch.
Mike
___
Ietf mailing
John C Klensin wrote:
In addition, there is, I think, one other approach that might be
appropriate, but only in very limited circumstances. That
approach applies where there is a well-thought-out approach with
design team consensus, evidence of implementation, and no
clearly-identified technical
Cullen Jennings wrote:
My current understanding is that the deployments
are small enough that changes are still easy and that non backwards
compatible changes are already expected.
Mail is, in fact, pretty different than most IETF protocols
insofar as it's a store and forward system where ther
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
It doesn't make me feel good either. But the alternatives I saw were:
- Don't do anything, and let Jefsey continue doing damage
- Make a solo proposal (or one with its supporters gathered privately)
to the IESG for a PR-action
- Be public, and see who else agreed
Dean Anderson wrote:
[adhomirama]
Regardless of all of this officialdom, might it be useful
to put together a list of h:j equivalents for Thunderbird
and other popular mail clients to make this list a more
enjoyable read?
Mike
___
Ietf
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I know that we aren't the net.cops, but are we not
net.stewards either?
Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we think
are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact pro
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact probably considers ietf
old and in the way?
Not sure why this
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:32 PM -0700 9/14/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
You mean we could invent Bitorrent? :)
BitTorrent (note the spelling) does a lot of very nice things, but not
those. For those interested, the BitTorrent protocol is described at
<http://www.bittorrent.com/protocol.h
Ned Freed wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
> If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
> support
> it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
> hard look
> at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the special
> case of
> SNMP.
I
Ned Freed wrote:
If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
support
it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
hard look
at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the special
case of
SNMP.
I'll bite: what could the IETF
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Mike,
At 8:41 AM -0700 9/7/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
In answer to Margaret's question about how it would know
where to "call home", it seems to me to be about the same
problem as with traps/informs. I haven't had anything to do
with this wg,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
And just BTW: I find "call home" reasonable to specify too, once
you've done TCP. It's obvious enough that I think it will be added to
implementations whether or not we specify it, so we should have very
strong reasons not to do so.
"Call home" is IMHO a fairly radic
This thread began as a complaint against a particular requirement being
imposed on a particular pre-working group effort.
No it did not. Stop imputing my motives.
Mike
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Michael, you've had some quite concrete responses which I hope
> have clarified things, but I really want to say that making
> Internet protocols secure isn't a hoop jumping exercise; it's
> more like a survival requirement, a
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
One small point.
--On 11. august 2005 07:52 -0700 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael, you've had some quite concrete responses which I hope
have clarified things, but I really want to say that maki
Stephen Kent wrote:
Folks,
I thought that what Russ asked for was not a threat analysis for DKIM,
but a threat analysis for Internet e-mail, the system that DKIM proposes
to protect. The idea is that only if we start with a characterization of
how and why we believe adversaries attack e-mail,
to answer your question, no it hasn't been answered
because I've yet to hear from the people -- and there were
many on both the IESG and IAB -- who were asking for it.
Do you seriously think you could write a "threat analysis"
given the definition in 2828?
Mik
Having a "threat analysis" was brought up at the plenary by Steve
Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm). At the MASS/DKIM BOF we are
being required to produce such a thing as a prerequisite to even
getting chartered as a working group. The problem that I have (and
Dave Crocker at the plenary) is that
Ned Freed wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying that TCP needs to be redesigned ASAP to allow
for a
larger number of source ports. IMO the pain would probably outweigh the
gain.
But that doesn't mean nobody is hitting the 65536 limit imposed by
source port
numbers. They are, it causes problems, an
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:32, Marshall Rose wrote:
> may i draw your attention to the Simple Lightweight RFID Reader
> Protocol BOF being held at IETF 62?
Isn't putting not just one, but _two_ diminutives
into a name severely tempting the gods?
Mike
signature.asc
Description:
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 12:39, Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
> > let's keep going to minneapolis for as long as they'll tolerate
> us,
> > and let's try to find summertime destinations that are equally
> > appalling to the MFLD community. paris, in that regard, should be
> > OFF the table.
>
> Don't wor
I think that this begs the question of where the
larger problem lies: while IP can run over pigeons,
bailing wire and quite possibly chewing gum, there
are clearly some media that IP runs over better. Looking
at the various wireless media, they are either somewhere
between completely hopeless (cell
Michael Richardson writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> > "Fred" == Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Try to get a direct flight or through San Francisco.
>
> Fred> I hear that. But (west coast perspective...) I avoid SFO like
> Fred> the plague. W
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ writes:
> Complete compilation of news at
> http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=622
>
> But I guess is an hoax ?
Or the revenge of J*m Fl*mm*ng?
Mike, 4 is to 6 as 6 is to 9?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <
Perry E. Metzger writes:
> I think the easy solution is just to block port 25
You can stop right there. The rest is so much
wishful thinking.
Mike
> unless someone asks
> for it to be opened. Average users have no idea what
> port 25 does or even what TCP is, so they won't
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
