On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > Has AOL notified anyone in advance? Quite a few provider-independent
> > mail providers were caught by surprise.
>
> Is there a mailing list that will reach all/most of these
> provider-independent mail providers?
>
> (If so, then that's
On 02/19/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Sean Donelan:
>
> > Yet another reason for supporting port 587 on your servers for remote
> > authenticated mail submission from your users. If you don't support
> > port 587, and use SPF, it may break when AOL or other providers re-di
On 02/19/05, Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been
> created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds
> like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the
> discussion.
*agree
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Joe Provo
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:22 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: NANOG Changes
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > Scott Weeks wrote:
> >
* Sean Donelan:
> Yet another reason for supporting port 587 on your servers for remote
> authenticated mail submission from your users. If you don't support
> port 587, and use SPF, it may break when AOL or other providers re-direct
> port 25.
>
> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/564
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Scott Weeks wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> >
> >: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
> >
> >
> >Yes, publically. Please.
>
> Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Please no. Spe
It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for
the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the
nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to).
I am also speaking only for myself on this.
I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog
