Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

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 al

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

"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 fidon

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

At 08:50 PM 3/31/99 +00-04, Kerry Miller wrote: > >Roeland, > >> A part of "everything right" is providing a gateway mechanism for >> those systems that can not resolve the TLD, yet have mail to >> deliver. It is one of a few remaining technical barriers to >> non-rooted TLDs. There is an answer

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

At 04:14 PM 3/29/99 -0600, you wrote: Well, here's another one into my filter file. Messrs. Allisate and Merritt can happily exchange obscenities in my trash barrel. Bill Lovell >On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: > >> Hm ... I was thinking similar thoughts about >> Jeff Williams, Sam

RE: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Incorporated - -Original Message- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 1999 6:34 AM To: William X. Walsh Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs Willam In message <[EMAIL PROTEC

RE: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs Hello el, It is appearing that I was the victim of a little projection on your part. I hope you don't mind if I resent that. You have a technical problem with Richard and you take it out on the whole ORSC. I just happened to be there, with the wrong me

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

This is called blowing a gasket. Then again if I were just told I do not exist and did not have such a healthy sense of self I might be prone to flipping out myself. BTW nice resume "Sam". Must have taken *hours* to create. And I won't be taking your unique physiological data storage meth

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: > Hm ... I was thinking similar thoughts about > Jeff Williams, Sam Hayes Merritt, III, Frank Rizzo ^^ > and *you*, good Herr Doctor. Placing unwanted, > unecessary and definately unethical strains on

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Whomever you are and all, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Roeland > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes: > > > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a > > free society, that this can ever be illegal. > > Why is this list full of people who

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Can you both take this silliness off-list please? "Richard J. Sexton" wrote: > > At 06:14 PM 3/27/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Richard, > > > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > > > >> If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy > >> I'd like to know w

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Hello el, It is appearing that I was the victim of a little projection on your part. I hope you don't mind if I resent that. You have a technical problem with Richard and you take it out on the whole ORSC. I just happened to be there, with the wrong message, at the wrong time, and you dump on me.

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > At 06:14 PM 3/27/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Richard, > > > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > > > >> If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy > >> I'd like to know what it is, but I'm st

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

At 06:14 PM 3/27/99 +0200, you wrote: >Richard, > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > >> If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy >> I'd like to know what it is, but I'm still waiting for a response to >> this from a couple of days ago: > >I'd ap

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Richard, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy > I'd like to know what it is, but I'm still waiting for a response to > this from a couple of days ago: I'd appreciate an extract from your log files showing

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

>I really don't mind ORSC's cuckoo land, they can send me mail from the >.MOON as much as I care, as long as they respond properly to the MTA's >rejection. > > >el If there's some change I need to make to my MTA to make you happy I'd like to know what it is, but I'm still waiting for a response t

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

On 27-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Willam > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes: > > > > > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in > > > > a > > > > free society, that this can ever be illegal. > > > > > > Why is this list fu

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Willam In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes: > > > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a > > > free society, that this can ever be illegal. > > > > Why is this list full of people who negate the facts of life? > > Actually, Dr Lisse, I

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

At 12:14 PM 3/27/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >Roeland > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" >writes: > >> Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a >> free society, that this can ever be illegal. > >Why is this list full of people who neg

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

On 27-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Roeland > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" > writes: > > > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a > > free society, that this can ever be illegal. > > Why is this list full of people who n

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Roeland In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes: > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a > free society, that this can ever be illegal. Why is this list full of people who negate the facts of life? > I, for one, have no problems sending t

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

In message , Bob Allisat writes: Hm ... I was thinking similar thoughts about > Jeff Williams, Sam Hayes Merritt, III, Frank Rizzo > and *you*, good Herr Doctor. Placing unwanted, > unecessary and definately unethical strains on > resou

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a free society, that this can ever be illegal. I, for one, have no problems sending to the LIST TLD. A name is simply something that someone calls themselves. It is like saying that the name "Eberhard" is illegal and can't be u

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Roeland Meyer writes: > Cute Richard . When did this TLD come up? Richard Sexton replied: + About 3 years ago. I noticed, after having run mailing lists for + over a decade now, that people refer to "the foo list" or "the bar + list" and figured the names (and addresses) of mailing lists would +

Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs

Richard, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard J. Sexton" writes: > At 05:35 PM 3/26/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > >At 06:30 PM 3/26/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > >"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Cute Richard . When did this TLD come up? > > About 3 years ag