On 12/29/16 1:51 PM, william manning wrote:
> "lets standardize this 'cause everyone does it" sounds like the medical
> community should have standardized on whiskey & leaches & coat hangers
> because thats what everyone did. if this work does proceed, i'd like to
> insist that it carry a disclai
On Dec 29, 2016, at 4:51 PM, william manning wrote:
> i'd like to insist
Can you explain what you mean by this from a process perspective?
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
"lets standardize this 'cause everyone does it" sounds like the medical
community should have standardized on whiskey & leaches & coat hangers
because thats what everyone did. if this work does proceed, i'd like to
insist that it carry a disclaimer that it is designed specifically for
closed netw
> From: Richard Clayton
> Everyone involved understands that there isn't at present a turnkey
> application that the other 5% (and indeed all the in-house corporate
> systems) could deploy
I do not understand that.
If the command `nslookup -q=txt -class=CHAOS version.bind` to a UNIX
shell or
>> Please see the previous gazillion messages from people who are using
>> RPZ in production to keep malware away from their users.
>>
>> Also see the previous gazillion messages noting that governments do
>> all sorts of DNS censorship now and don't need RPZ.
>>
>> Could you explain in more deta
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 05:45:59AM -, John Levine wrote:
> >I'm seeing how it really helps governments cheaply create and enforce
> >the creation of national internets -- especially with the walled garden
> >features. Are those the good guys to you, or are there other benefits?
>
> Please see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <20161229054559.31443.qm...@ary.lan>, John Levine
writes
>>I'm seeing how it really helps governments cheaply create and enforce
>>the creation of national internets -- especially with the walled garden
>>features. Are those the good guys
