Greg,
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
I AM COMPLAINING THAT I DO NOT WANT TO REACH THESE ADDRESSES AND I
DON`T WANT TO BE FORCED TO REACH THEM!!!
[...]
I am asking to have their misconfigured MTAs brought in line.
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Nobody says you have to send me email.
That's patently not what we are talking about.
Greg is quite right, it's the use of Toy Level Domains in the envelope
with the intent of FORCING other people to resolve those.
If you do, my signature file
On 31-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
I am asking to have their misconfigured MTAs brought in line. They
can play with whatever they want. I just don't want to be bothered by
their incompetence.
It seems to me that the people who use alternative TLDs in the
envelopes of their
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Jay,
You wrote (answering to Kent Crispin):
Anyway, David had questioned the last
line in the following paragraph:
"The gTLD-MoU was controversial because it would have
confiscated all generic Top Level Domains, not only from
startups like IO Design (who
I am glad to see this come out into the open after hearing about it
privately from several attendees.
http://www.internetnews.com/intl-news/article/0,1087,6_89431,00.html
it is refreshing to see that ICANN's contempt for the internet extends off
line as well as online.
hans was a special hit
At 09:34 PM 3/30/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
Perhaps you could tell us what more is needed to get "EVERYTHING right," as I
am quite interested in knowing exactly what you mean.
Actually, Richard and I have spoken about this quite some time ago. I have
also mentioned it to Chris Ambler. A
Izumi, Gordon and all,
Izumi AIZU wrote:
Although I was one of the more vocal members among the APRICOT
team of people, and I pointed out to Esther during the ICANN Press
Conference in Singapore, that having a press conference without giving notice,
at least, to the local organizer is not
Gordon Cook wrote:
hans was a special hit apparently when he went screaming out of
the room after dennis jennings
Tell us more! I always knew poor, stuffy
Hans would be prone to going ballistic.
Sounds like another amusing story in an
already hilarious melodrama! More! More!
Bob
I began to get email last night from healtcare
professionals inquiring about this new domain
zone.
Sure enough, the Republic of Moldova (MD3-DOM) has
apparently transferred responsibility of the .MD
zone to a Bonita Springs FL company, Domain Name
Trust, Inc.
Info is available at:
At 07:33 AM 3/31/99 +0200, you wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Nobody says you have to send me email.
That's patently not what we are talking about.
I guess I don't understand then. How does my use of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
affect you if you don't accidentally try to send
..per, a source of domain name to IP address resolution *service*.
What is domain name resolution service? Computers connected to the Internet
that will answer a question (query).
How is the source of this service identified? Why, as .per, of course.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
D
It would be even nicer if their mailer understood ASCII -- or if mail
forwarders first looked it over and reformatted as necessary.
BTW, XML is not equivalent to Word. Anti-MS bias is a red herring.
kerry
==
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 30 Mar
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:16:15AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
The use of the terms "own", "property rights", and so on have always
been problematic in this context. The terms may have precise legal
definitions, but those precise legal definitions have not yet come
to terms with domain
At 08:43 AM 3/31/99 -0600, you wrote:
..per, a source of domain name to IP address resolution *service*.
What is domain name resolution service? Computers connected to the Internet
that will answer a question (query).
How is the source of this service identified? Why, as .per, of course.
Seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Lisse,
I am puzzled as to why an alternative approach would discombobulate
(confuse) you to such an extent. If you choose to conform, then
conform and leave the innovation to those with vision.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated
- -Original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This sounds like a bit of a closed approach to me.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated
- -Original Message-
From: Richard J. Sexton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 4:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP]
At 12:49 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:49 AM 3/31/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
Or at least competing registrars. While I realize that the entrepreneurial
blood wants everybody and his maiden aunt to become a registry, for
heaven only knows what gimmickry,
GRIN Gimmicks, widgets, doo-dads,
At 12:49 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
I don't see any need for more than
one "entry ledger" -- registry -- and let the competition flourish at the
registrar level.
he he Only if the registrar can qualify.
Ah, a little less flippantly now, here's a splendid exercise, which
I know will be met
Kent Crispin writes:
(*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains true with
ICANN -- ICANN will only succeed because the USG has sufficient power
to force a resolution.
Greg Skinner replies:
+ Hmmm. What power
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 03:40:38PM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:22:38PM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Hmmm. What power does the USG have to prevent people from using
alternative TLDs?
None whatsoever. What keeps people
At 12:22 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains true with
ICANN -- ICANN will only succeed because the USG has sufficient power
to
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I am saying that the mail system, when confronted by a destination
address it doesn't know, should forward the message to a relay that may
know better what to do with the message. This algorithm was worked out over
15 years ago, in fidonet
At 09:41 AM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
And now an interesting question: registries and domain
names aside, do I own that IP? Those friggin' NUMBERS?
That one little segment of the whole WORLD WIDE WEB?
I don't think so. So from WHERE did Iperdome get the range
of IP numbers that it is so
Now here's a real kick:
http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A385-1999Mar30.html
NSI says it's not the net police, but that sure has not stopped
it from screwing up a lot of domain name registrants.
Bill Lovell
At 05:23 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I am saying that the mail system, when confronted by a destination
address it doesn't know, should forward the message to a relay that may
know better what to do with the message. This algorithm
Well, if it were me, I would want to avoid being accused of fraud for trying
to sell a character string, so I'd go with the "I'll provide a service for a
fee".
D Schutt
At 08:43 AM 3/31/99 -0600, you wrote:
..per, a source of domain name to IP address resolution *service*.
What is domain
At 02:11 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
The songbird sings a sweet tune. Much of the cordial blather being exchanged
between me and a few others disappears when it is made clear, as I believe
Roeland ultimately has done, and as the songbird now sings, that all the
hassle has been over
At 03:40 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
And I'll second all of this as well. (Not that anyone cares, I'm
sure, but I think the exchange has squeezed out the real
meaning of what most of the various people not addicted to
profanity and bashing for bashing's sake have been saying.)
Bill Lovell
At 06:23 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 04:52 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 12:22 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains
Roeland, Bill and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 06:23 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 04:52 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 12:22 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
30 matches
Mail list logo
