Ab arrq - jr nyernql unir ebg13!
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Randy Presuhn
wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Richard L. Barnes"
>> To: "IETF Member Dave Aronson"
>> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
>&g
Well we finally tracked down the problem
Part of the delay was, I was not going to submit a fake ID to run this
down, but was just working toward the -01 version which I submitted
yesterday.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
But the short of it is that only a small select
Steven,
Are you expecting people to reply with +I?
Some of us have already transitioned to the new numbering system. This
document is currently in last call:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-ivi-05
and I quote:
This document presents the CERNET IVI translation design and
On Tue Dec 15 10:28:35 2009, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Dec 15 02:08:08 2009, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson wrote:
> great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers!
...
> Loa Andersson
>
> Sr Strategy and Standards Mana
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Dec 15 02:08:08 2009, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson wrote:
> great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers!
...
> Loa Andersson
>
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///
> phone: +46 10 717 52 13
>
On Tue Dec 15 02:08:08 2009, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson wrote:
> great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers!
...
> Loa Andersson
>
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///
> phone: +46 10 717 52 13
> +46 767 72 92
On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson wrote:
> great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers!
...
> Loa Andersson
>
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///
> phone: +46 10 717 52 13
> +46 767 72 92 13
Shouldn't you therefore have written:
phone: +XLVI X DC
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> All,
>
>> Hi -
>>
>>> From: "Richard L. Barnes"
>>> To: "IETF Member Dave Aronson"
>>> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
All,
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Richard L. Barnes"
>> To: "IETF Member Dave Aronson"
>> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails
>>
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> It's about time we got rid of that pesky J and W, and we don't
> *really *need both V and U, do uue?
Cue Mark Twain and his orxografikl riform...
-Dave
--
Dave Aronson - Have Pun, Will Babble | Work: davearonson.com | /\ ASCII
-+ Play
Hi -
> From: "Richard L. Barnes"
> To: "IETF Member Dave Aronson"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails
>
> Clearly, the best solution to this probl
Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> Clearly, the best solution to this problem is to enforce Latin as the
> official language of the Internet. Lots of people already use the Latin
> character set!
>
> --Richard
...we could also define a character encoding "XTF-8" which is identical
to UTF-8, except that
Clearly, the best solution to this problem is to enforce Latin as the
official language of the Internet. Lots of people already use the
Latin character set!
--Richard
On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:12 AM, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 15:10, Doug Ewell wrote:
A former
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 15:10, Doug Ewell wrote:
> A former employer of mine once blocked a message which contained the phrase
> "magna cxm laude," where the X was a U. Apparently that one word, taken out
> of context, was sufficient.
That's clbuttic. A group I belong to, once had a convention
"Dave CROCKER" wrote:
Consequently, it could be interesting to track down why your corporate
filters are flagging these.
A former employer of mine once blocked a message which contained the
phrase "magna cxm laude," where the X was a U. Apparently that one
word, taken out of context, was s
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:38:51 +0100, Julian Reschke
> said:
JR> I would hope that the ID actually points out a specific IETF mailing
JR> list for comments, and the author is reading it.
I'd say most do not. Most just list author addresses and do not list
the WG mailing list.
--
Wes H
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Wes Hardaker wrote:
...
But consider the fact that: half the purpose of posting an ID is to get
comments about it sent to you. Consider then that if you have any sort
of aggressive filtering in place that's blocking your receipt of the
verification mes
Julian Reschke wrote:
Wes Hardaker wrote:
...
But consider the fact that: half the purpose of posting an ID is to get
comments about it sent to you. Consider then that if you have any sort
of aggressive filtering in place that's blocking your receipt of the
verification messages then the chan
Wes Hardaker wrote:
...
But consider the fact that: half the purpose of posting an ID is to get
comments about it sent to you. Consider then that if you have any sort
of aggressive filtering in place that's blocking your receipt of the
verification messages then the chances are very very high th
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:16:04 +0200, Jari Arkko
> said:
JA> But its good that Bob's IT person has promised to figure this out. The
JA> filters seem simply too sensitive. I have not heard of other people
JA> having a similar issue, at least not beyond an extent experienced for
JA> all au
Wes Hardaker wrote:
But consider the fact that: half the purpose of posting an ID is to get
comments about it sent to you. Consider then that if you have any sort
of aggressive filtering in place that's blocking your receipt of the
verification messages then the chances are very very high that
Dave, Bob,
I do not, offhand, know any any interesting vocabulary or text pattern
in these messages that ought to be problematic.
All upper case text. Just a wild guess.
But its good that Bob's IT person has promised to figure this out. The
filters seem simply too sensitive. I have not heard
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
But the short of it is that only a small selection of email attachments
are let through and otherwise the email is dropped silently. Thus the
email for validating an ID submission never got to my corporate email
account.
I doubt that I-D transaction messages confor
Russ Housley wrote:
Bob:
There are no attachments in I-D Submission verification email messages
from the online I-D Submission tool. The most recent one I got went
like this:
Thanks Russ. I just got a call from our IT guy that will look at the log
and see what happened to the verificaiton e
Bob:
There are no attachments in I-D Submission verification email
messages from the online I-D Submission tool. The most recent one I
got went like this:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Subject: I-D Submitter Authentication for
Date: ,date.
Please follow the link
On 2009-12-08, at 13:22, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Or is there a way already to customize this that I missed?
You can submit a draft using the I-D submission tool using an address that is
not listed in the document as an author's address.
You can validate a draft for submission using the I-D s
IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my own
mail server. but
I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought by
a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large pa
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my own
> mail server. but
>
> I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought by
> a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large part these
> rules were develop
ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my
own mail server. but
I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought
by a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large part
these rules were developed by my colleagues in the other
29 matches
Mail list logo
