Martin Rex wrote:
most home users in Germany can not even get IPv6 from their ISP,
even when they had an IPv6-capable DSL-router.
Curiously enough, our biggest and almost monopoly because most
others depend on them - dtag.de - released:
first half of 2011 they will start upward and
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track
vs informational?
Apple supports it.
Linux supports it (mostly).
BSD supports it (mostly).
So half the world supports it.
When Microsoft too supports it, it is a standard.
I do support it
Sorry if I misunderstand something,
but I thought it was already working.
e.g. chinese hackers successfully proofed they can switch off all
power companies in Australia whenever they want.
I remember some places in the world have forbidden to connect
lethal devices like powerplants to the
How about a workgroup and a mailinglist?
Maybe it has nothing to do with IETF
it definitely has to do with DTN, UDP, IPv6 and BEHAVE.
I am interested.
Peter
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Take it off line. This has nothing to do with the IETF.
___
Ietf
Sam Hartman wrote:
TSG == TSG tglas...@earthlink.net writes:
TSG There is a serious concern that when individuals are
TSG 'filtered out of IETF lists' whether by official or
TSG unofficial means, that their voices are prevented from being
TSG included into the IETF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like it or not, sample size reallly does matter. But if you really do prefer
individual anecdotal evidence, I'll point out that in practically every bogus
blocking incident I've seen of late, the fault lies not with an operation like
Spamhaus, but with some local
There is one thing I could proof when counting the emails going
through the mailer I am responsible for.
When we started blocking emails from dynamic addresses we
reduced spam by 50%.
The gurus would not believe but I could show thenm, when we
blocked all but the dynamic addresses we could
Hi Eric,
I would like to be part of that group.
My little network is connected to the internet
via a NAT router and I could not live without
it because daily renumbering wont do.
On the other hand that NAT-box is the biggest
obstacle between my network and IPv6.
I would like to help design a
Maybe I am a bit late with this idea.
I remeber dns roots switching off and DNSBLs switching off.
Users wont notice until broken - or not even then.
The sysop has been fired.
There should be a means for the DNSBL to tell its client
1) I am not a DNS-server
2) I am going to switch off soon
Windows is one of the most prominent users of DNS.
I remember you could send them netbios packets and
windows would put them into the DNS cache.
Be asured they will put dnsbl into the cache and
then the famous IE will look for cnn.com on 127.0.0.1
It makes sense after all because the spammers
e.g. the .local TLD.
When microsoft introduced the .local TLD for rendezvous
incompatibility, their windows boxes started to query the
root-servers for nonsense like refrigerator.local
When some hearty nameserver operators fighted back, loading
a zone file for .local they brought campus networks
Hi Steve,
sorry to mention spamhaus again,
but that is the reason why many german and especially austrian
mailoperators had to give up blacklisting completely and turned
to graylisting.
Greylisting is mostly the same as blacklisting except you dont
depend on somebody else to maintain the list.
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:41:49AM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
All very good reasons why doing blind, single-variable MIB walks
makes no sense. Are there any commercial products that
do this routinely? I'm not aware of any.
Adding to David,
IASON originally did a
The digital signature as a mens to check integrity of the file,
same as the signature in emails.
Disabling the digital signature brings the risk of corrupted files.
Kind regards
Peter
symonds thompson wrote:
Hi ,
Ever since our company has located servers at remote locations, I am
There are 2 people who own every right on computers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
and programming
http://www.agnesscott.edu/Lriddle/women/love.htm
All patents therafter are infringements of the work of
these two people.
Well even those two people built on the work of other
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any relief for the Internet before IPv4 space is exhausted.
I am so tired of this when IPv4 space runs out, civilization will fall
vibe. I'm almost ready to suggest that we just hand out all the remaining
IPv4 address space
Sorry for the double post.
My mailer either sends it double - or nothing at all :(
Cheers
Peter and Karin
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail:
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:
Interesting discussion.
I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.
One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont
How about
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
and their email can be found:
; DiG 9.4.0b4 -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d @ns5.ce.net.cn.
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59227
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4,
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
I don't see how such an architectural limitation can be enforced.
There is no way that the IETF can prevent an ISP issuing IPv6
customers a /128 if they choose.
Not directly, but there's the indirect route: a) IETF designs IPv6
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title: Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to
Limited Use for Large Private Internets'
Author(s): P. Wilson, et
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
done if we had more meetings outside the US?
Stewart
Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US?
Or multilingual namespace?
Kind regards
Peter and Karin
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
John Levine wrote:
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this, I
DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
DNS is no longer about publishing information about hostnames and numbers
but about keeping this information a seecret.
So not using DNS at all and distributing host files is much better than
DNS and more reliable :)
On the other
Just as an idea, China has a single ccTLD '.CN'.
I can see them experimenting with three others
Status China Root
soa(XN--55QX5D.,2006092104,CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN,210.52.214.86).
soa(XN--55QX5D.,2006092104,CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN,61.145.114.120).
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not completely convinced that beer is the appropriate choice
in Montreal
La Fin du Monde... or anything else by Unibroue.
Just don't try ordering a Molson Canadian :-P
You can try La Militante. Karin and me
Just try this good example:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133654main_ESAS_charts.pdf
It is a nice promotion for the successor to the space shuttle.
Best store it localy before viewing.
It is a nice document with wonderful pictures. But building
the screens takes me hours.
That is one of the reasons
Clement Cherlin wrote:
On 6/17/06, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that ASCII art has its limits, particularly when it comes to
mathematics. But I think a more gradual evolution is called for in this
case, with more consideration given to not only the normative issue but
all
Michael Thomas wrote:
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
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I was 16 years old, I wrote a text editor in BASIC that
would probably have allowed me to edit RFCs.
I wrote a text editor in Basic for the ZxSpectrum that was published
commercially when I was 15.
I
Julian Reschke wrote:
I noticed that the ID tracker now has a comment from the authors (see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_commentid=52124),
which I'd like to comment over here...:
Author's response to Last Call comments on ETags
1) Best common practice
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to disagree.
Firstly, if many of us reading the document can not figure out what
problem it is solving, then the framework is not doing its job.
Secondly, if there are existing, viable, deployed solutions to the
problem that the WG is attempting to solve then the
Bernard Aboba wrote:
My question is more why do they need EAP in situations where they are
not running at the link layer than why do they want or not want PANA.
The simple answer is that there are situations which IEEE 802.1X cannot
handle on wired networks. As specified, IEEE 802.1X is
Michel Py wrote:
That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global
ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This
brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended
private space or make it global unicast.
When develloping IASON,
Michel Py wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us
aggregation with provider independence.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On 4/11/06 12:33 AM, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, I've needed to power-cycle these NAT boxes every few weeks, to
clear out the garbage.
I'm curios to understand more of what you mean by this? Are you running out
of ports? Do you have any ideas
John Loughney wrote:
Lars-Erik,
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
consumers want to buy them.
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to complete exhaustion
of the IPv4 address space (Version 1). Some clever people worked out this
ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a
superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6.
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
John Calcote writes:
I'll just jump in here for a second and mention also that vendors
offer what they have to, not what they can. They want to provide the
most bang for the buck, so to speak. These companies don't offer
the multiple-static-ip-address option today
Austin Schutz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:00:44AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
1996199719981999200020012002200320042005
2.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.4 3.4 4.5
(The numbers represent the number of addresses
Francois Menard wrote:
Are you saying that ENUM is a dead end?
F.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
819 692 1383
ENUM is a dead born child.
ENUM is supposed to be good for VoIP. Well, I do have VoIP but my VoIP
does work allthough ENUM does not. My router could use ENUM - but which
one should I ask,
Simon Leinen wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:42:17PM -0800,
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
The privileged port concept has some marginal utility on multiuser
systems where you don't Joe-random-user to grab some port for a
Ned Freed wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:42:17PM -0800,
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
The privileged port concept has some marginal utility on multiuser
systems where you don't Joe-random-user to grab some port for a
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The idea of requiring a privillege to access certain ports can have utility.
The idea of requiring root in a monolithic two level system like unix is
a very bad one indeed. Http and smtp servers should not run as root.
Forcing them to is bad o/s design.
Bind is
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:47:46 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel
Chiappa) wrote:
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
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eduardo, if there is one person I know who is willing to say that he
knows who you are, and that you are a different person from Jefsey
Morfin, I'll stop thinking you're a Jefsey sock puppet.
What difference does it make?
King Harald from Norway, no other member of
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a reserved range, then it
is easy to start dynamic allocation outside the range.
Yes -- this is my point. I don't care about Unix-style privileged
ports (and have never
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I fail to see how being infiltrated by the Turkish secret service is
something to boast about.
Not do boast about, but to warn - because the other roots are infiltrated
as well. That is why China is running their own root in the first place
and that is why Turkey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Turkish secret service operative discovered in Public-Root.
http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie140/artikel1.html
Is there an English-language version? Ik spreek geen nederlands (aside
from that), and search for engels came up empty.
-Dave
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 3 mar 2006, at 18.15, Joe Baptista wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root- servers
- despite what the press says. And at least we have not seen a drop
in queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 09.26, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
More than 5 years ago I predicted what the Chinese
government announced today.
What happened today:
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
Sandeep Srivastava wrote:
Thanks John. Please see my response in-line...
On 2/21/06, *John C Klensin* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Tuesday, 21 February, 2006 12:53 +0530 Sandeep Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First
Once upon a time the used to be computers speaking ASCII or EBCDIC. The
ASCII computers where unix mostly. The EBCDIC where mainframes. ASCII
mode meant that EBCDIC card decks with fixed lenght of mostly 80 characters
per line would be translated into variable lenght records terminated by
CR/LF
To make a long debate short.
When you no longer know what is real and what is imagination,
that is a clear sign that the Church of Scientology might
be involved.
When you have facts in front of your eyes but people keep
telling you different.
When new facts start aperaring but you have no clue
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530,
Neil Harwani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 128 lines which said:
I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been
implemented before
Operating Systems, Design and Implementation by
Andrew S.
For the no-tv people like Karin and me:
Harper Valley P.T.A
USA / NBC/ 36x30m-e / 1981-82
First Episode: Friday 16 January 1981 / 8.00pm
Last Episode: Saturday 14 August 1982 / 8.30pm
Theme Music: Harper Valley P.T.A. by Tom T. Hall
Sitcom starring Barbara Eden as Stella Johnson a widow
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
This entire fiasco tells me that the people nominally participating
in it have a lot of time on their hands and very little to do, and
they choose to waste it bickering like preschoolers on a playground
rather than spend it trying to do the actual work of the IETF.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise
ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of
that up
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 06:57 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I have never had a problem opening an old file
with an up-to-date version of the SW. The problems
arise when you try to do the reverse. That makes sense
of course, since if you could
Tim Bray wrote:
On Dec 28, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Reserving NUL as a special terminator is a C library-ism. I think that
history has shown that the use of this kind of mechanism, rather than
explicitly tracking the string's length, was a mistake.
I guess variably lenght
Yaakov Stein wrote:
It does not matter how many people can read MSWord.
The only supported formats should be the ones where you know
what the format is (and not the ones that depend on particular
program).
They are written to be readable by everybody.
Sun-cenrtic, IBM-centric and real
David B Harrington wrote:
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
Not me (or not I, whichever)
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not
A WG?
Karin and me are interested.
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 23:10 14/12/2005, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:46:42PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The best way to hide a signal is noise, is that's your idea ?
Makes sense from my POV.
Not necessarily the _best_
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
How security could benefit from high volume spam
The parliament of the European Union today has passed a law that
electronical call detail records, such as phone numbers, e-mail addresses,
web accesses of all 450 million EU citizens are to be recorded and
stored for 6 to
. Which see below. Have tried to contact Paul
Scheepers - our absent minded root operator - who now hovers very close to
criminal conspiracy - to get him to fix this mistake. Noone is at home at
the inn. Not good. See appened message to Peter Dambier and our
public-root associates.
I have no idea
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as
Any IETF member ?
Anyboy who has enough brains to share.
Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because
the contract does end.
There has been nothing that would suggest the contract
Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.
Peter and Karin
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308
Johan Henriksson wrote:
Will McAfee writes:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/
This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever
owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet,
by the very nature of it's structure.
Placing governments in charge of the
Alexis Turner wrote:
I don't want to clutter up everyone's inboxes with dozens of rants that
amount to hyperventilating and lots of Iiii's!, but if anyone would
like to e-mail me off list with their thoughts on the UN's WSIS conference
and why having them replace ICANN would be a good/bad
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 10:45 05/09/2005, Christian Huitema wrote:
My greatest concern is that the document as it stands is likely to
cause a large number of bogus DNS queries. If the protocol is widely
adopted, it seems probable that many clients will have LLMNR enabled
on an
FAKE
A friend just called to teach me how to spell LLMNR.
Sorry I can not do that without looking it up.
And he told me not to be so harsh with it. Yes they
need it. Their bot controler needs it.
No, you dont need a windows for the controler, MAC
or Linux does nicely. But the total cost of
Dave Singer wrote:
I'm a by-stander on this discussion, maybe off-base or out of it -- but
something other than the undesirable traffic struck me.
Isn't it also true that I might *deliberately break* all sorts of things
by introducing 'blocking' names into DNS responses, so that an LLMNR
Russ Allbery wrote:
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update,
I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the
LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (or anyone else) has
intended to
Hi Bill,
I am speaking of this root-server system:
a.public-root.net. 900 IN A 205.189.71.2
b.public-root.net. 900 IN A 61.9.136.52
c.public-root.net. 900 IN A 68.255.182.111
d.public-root.net. 900 IN A
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Peter,
Peter Dambier wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43
update,
I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with
the
LLMNR specification
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marc Manthey writes:
i'm going to have to raise the point that Peters root-server
system
is his private walled-garden and not representative of the
Internet's
authoritative root servers. Just for clarification.
--bill
i
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 2:47 PM +0200 8/31/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That is about 1/3 of the total. It doesn't surprise me at all that
so many bogus queries arrive - everybody who mistypes a TLD or
misconfigures a default domain generates bogus queries, and this isn't
going to change. The
.
Regards,
Peter Dambier
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http
on your box why not try .com ?
It might be fun. :)
Peter Dambier wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter writes (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name
Resolution (LLMNR)' toProposed Standard):
Ian Jackson wrote:
Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find
Yes, that is exactly what our unvolontary experiment has shown.
And it makes 25% of our root server traffic. It is stealing resources
from us. That is why we consider this protocol harmful to the
internet society.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Stuart Cheshire wrote:
As I understand it, one of
on the NAT or
somewhere else except when you proxy after the NAT you proxy after
a proxy. You can replace several proxies by a tunnel through a
low speed data line. In fact that will break SSH wordbook attacks.
Just delay everything longer than the hacker probably waits
Regards,
Peter Dambier
--
Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LLMNR has waded through the lengthy IETF standardization
process to get to where it is. That Microsoft has been patient and
spent
the money needed to keep people on this task long enough to get it here
should be rewarded with the IETF
Hi Jeroen,
I forwared your message - not replying to show your headder:
From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
So you had sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ietf@ietf.org received only a copy. Some people might have got nothing.
My own
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 26-aug-2005, at 10:33, Peter Dambier wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
I forwared your message - not replying to show your headder:
From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
So you had sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ietf
Stuart Cheshire wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to consider
the following document:
- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-42.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
Stuart Cheshire wrote:
Putting service discovery requirements aside for a moment, the other big
difference between mDNS and LLMNR is that mDNS facilitates local-scoped
names, analogous to RFC 1918 addresses. LLMNR lets you look up a host
name without a DNS server, but it pre-supposes that
Keith Moore wrote:
What is this document for? No one has implemented this LLMNR protocol. No
one has any plans to implement this protocol. No company plans to ship
products using this protocol. Even Microsoft has not even hinted at plans
to use LLMNR in Longhorn/Vista.
I don't see anything
Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
just yesterday a larger german DSL/Internet provider activated
- without a real notice - a feature as field trial in my city,
so that HTTP(S) requests of customers are redirected to their own
web portal (apparently using some soft state timeout).
I'm also aware of
89 matches
Mail list logo
