From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:41:30 -0500
> AND that these are the same people with archaic browsers and
> e-mail clients that can't handle recent advances in technology - even to
> the point of using "dumb" devices that can only handle ASCII?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:50:03 -0500 (EST)
From: James M Galvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think it would be a mistake for the IETF to try to get into the
business of protecting mailing list subscribers from virses.
I'd sure like to understand your motivation for this point of
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:21:32 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On the other hand, there is probably an interaction between
"presentations" and in-meeting personal activities that are not
WG-constructive (game-playing being only an extreme point). I
hope this isn
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0800
> a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-
> financed but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the
> area?
actually, it was not the AD, but the co-chair.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:07:32 EST
From: Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. But could someone please post the
lyrics to the IETF Christmas song, the video that was shown at the
Plenary.
Is the video itself available anywhere?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:20:23 -0500
From: V Guruprasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> mumble. as far as I can tell, both DNS names and IP addresses
> are hopelessly overloaded and are likely to stay that way until
> we figure out how to make a
From: Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Dec 2000 09:02:52 -0500
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kerberos tried to deal with this problem by talking about "canonical
> domain name", which it tried to define as being
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gateways that surreptitiously modify packets can break ANY end-to-end
protocol no matter what layer it's at. Assume that we sacrifice IP
addresses as not necessarily end-to-end. Fine, there are gatewa
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:54:47 -0500
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.
I disagree. IPSEC is about Security at the IP layer, and that means we
need a security association which is t
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:44:18 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran)
| It's already happening. Try running IPSec from one 10 network to
| another 10 network. Much pain.
Surely the "much pain" is because, as Melinda Shore indicates,
some "anti-NAT fanatics" cannot
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Dec 2000 13:32:03 -0500
It certainly takes more. The amount of NAT equipment out there is
astonishing, and as I said at the plenary, people are starting to pay
Real Money (as in millions a year) in large organizations to keep th
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:23:11 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At least the recipient has the unintelligible data well isolated and
labeled. MIME did its job.
Indeed. If I get a mail message which is in HTML only, 99.97% of the
time it's SPAM-mail. And I've lost cou
From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:15:20 -0400
we've had technology for content labelling, and filtering based on
such labels, for awhile. nobody uses it.
a one-bit content label is even harder to use than the PICS stuff.
all of the objections abo
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400
From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now. This has been supported
at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh). It
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:29:07 +0200 (CEST)
Randy Bush writes:
| actually it might be a feature to torture the anti-nat bigots
Maybe they wouldn't notice.
Anyone using Kerberos will notice, I guarant
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:14:55 +0200
From: Jacob Palme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
They went to the police (in the USA) saying that this
person had infringed on their copyright by publishing
their secret documents on Usenet. The police in the
USA contacted the police in Finland. The po
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:54:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tim Salo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000 (EST)
> From: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML email
>[...]
> tytso> I wond
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:11:45 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly
>> the same message reflects very poorly on those who do it
>> intentionally and on those who cause MUA's to trick others
>> into doing
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:48:12 -0400
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The whole world does not run software which is a good culture medium
for email viruses. I mostly use nice old UNIX software and it would
take a number of extra steps on my part for some embded
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:06:21 -0400
From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it's not at all clear to me why households need traditional multihoming,
> nor how to make it feasible for households to have it. so I would regard
> this as overdesign of the home 'internet interface b
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 05:48:36 -0400
From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> there are far too many problems to NAT, affecting far too many
> applications ... and the list is constantly growing larger.
Perhaps if there was a document that explained how to design an
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which is why it was depressing. Oh, well, perhaps a future version of
the Problems draft will consider that issue and say as others wrote, it's
not a problem and can be fixed with big buffers wat
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 02:30:25 -0400
From: Peter Deutsch in Mountain View <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well there you go. You think the IETF's Seal of Approval and
promotion of technical sanity can prevent our unsound vendor
practices from perpetrating Marketing BS on poor users. You're ri
From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:15:57 -0400
the problem is that one person's idea of improved service may be
another person's idea of degraded service. getting stale data
to me faster may not be much help. I would argue that it
is up to the prod
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:00:22 -0400
From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ah, no. In the real world of the Internet today, we have LOTS of folks
who get their Internet connectivity via cable modems and DSL. Many
vendors of such services, in order to help preserve IP address spac
From: Keith McCloghrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:34:38 -0800 (PST)
> Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings
> or mailinglists?
>
> That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing.
You seem to be making t
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 11:21:24 +0100
From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My reason for the particular timing of this note is to wonder -- if there
is consensus about long-term support for 802.11 DS -- whether a bulk
purchase of cards for a discounted price is worth pursuing p
27 matches
Mail list logo
