Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice
really is required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow
acceptable. (RFC2418, Section 3.1
I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not sure
why this is a sur
J D Falk wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not
sure why this is a surprise to people. January
3 and 10 got cancelled for various reasons (proximity to the holidays
and lack of 30-day notice, I
think) but the rest are still there.
Jim Fenton wrote:
> I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not
> sure why this is a surprise to people. January
> 3 and 10 got cancelled for various reasons (proximity to the holidays
> and lack of 30-day notice, I
> think) but the rest are still there.
Could you recap th
Back on December 11, Stephen Farrell wrote:
We're looking at scheduling 1 hour calls each Thursday
in Jan (i.e. 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st) at 1700 UTC.
Dave Crocker wrote:
So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice
really is required to whether what is really on
Dear Chairs & Dave,
Actually, you originally said January 3. Then we heard nothing about
the matter for a month. That was the last note I see posted on this
matter from your or Steve, with no resolution as to schedule:
I tend to agree with Dave on this one. To start with there was a lot
>> Yep...given the lack of further comment about the recurring phone
>> calls,
>> I assumed they wouldn't be happening and will instead be unavailable
>> during that time.
Not a great time for me, either, givm the short notice.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "Th
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:15 AM, J D Falk wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice
really is required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow
acceptable. (RFC2418, Section 3.1
And no, this isn't about being a stickler about the rules.
It's
Dave Crocker wrote:
> So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice
> really is required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow
> acceptable. (RFC2418, Section 3.1
>
> And no, this isn't about being a stickler about the rules.
> It's about being inclusive.
Yep...given th
Barry Leiba wrote:
Eliot has set us up for a conference call this Thursday, 17 Jan, as we'd
originally scheduled back in December (actually, we'd planned to start
on 10 Jan, but we didn't make that; see "delay" above). It'll go along
with a jabber meeting, for which we'll use the normal DKIM
Stephen Farrell said...
Sorry about the delay with this, Barry and I had problems syncing
up over the holiday and have only now gotten this done.
Stephen is being too kind. He had nothing to do with the delay; that's
down to me. And thanks, Stephen, for getting the list posted to the list.
Hi All,
Sorry about the delay with this, Barry and I had problems syncing
up over the holiday and have only now gotten this done.
The attached contains our view on the current list of SSP issues [1]
except for those opened in the last week or so. (Sorry the
formatting's a bit crappy.)
Can you c
11 matches
Mail list logo
