http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/17/HNlindash_1.html
___
Ham-Linux mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ham-linux
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
SORRY - I sent it to the wrong list!
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax:(866)594-8574
would be
to stop or make very unlikely, or difficult to send forged spam. Or at least
make it detectable early in the process of accepting email and hang up
on the spammer.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
sh or hang-up when the content matches a URL that
somehow blacklisted.
(2.2) Is for a virus scanner to catch and is almost never traceable.
There are things the IETF can do to help with the spam problem (1.0).
--
Doug Royer
the .bash_history file he had left behind.
My guess is that he did not have that much experience as he
failed to remove log and history files.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED
LinIF meeting this Thursday at 7PM.
Suggested Topic: How to be self funding.
Location: The same meeting place. 550 2nd street, Room 297.
Corner of 2nd street & Freeman
Use East entrance.
--
Doug Royer |
SORRY - wrong mailing list!
Doug Royer wrote:
LinIF meeting this Thursday at 7PM.
Suggested Topic: How to be self funding.
Location: The same meeting place. 550 2nd street, Room 297.
Corner of 2nd street & Freeman
Use East entr
LinIF meeting , This Thursday 17th, at 7PM
Same place, 550 2nd Street, Idaho Falls.
Corner of Freeman and 2nd.
East entrance, 2nd floor, Room 297
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do
Thank you,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This transaction appears to have no content
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
really odd: foo.dom.com exists and dom.com does not
exist as a host name. Yet when I ping dom.com it points to
and pings the above IP.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need
hem for technical content.
The AD's would not have to worry about reading a hundred or so
pages more than needed.
Or were my initial submission issues rare?
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
organization,
I find that wonderful!
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
begin:vcard
fn:Doug Royer
n:Royer;Doug
org:INET-Consuiting.com
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway
pen relays nor email authentication has been shown to be related
to spam: Neither promoting spam, nor preventing spam.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
begin
Dean Anderson wrote:
Brian Carpenter asked that the subject be changed. I've also removed the
IESG from the cc-list.
Doug, you've been misled. Inline.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Doug Royer wrote:
I have not been following this topic closely.
To the point of open relays being a p
to resolve *in a public forum* complains
about alleged misdeeds by ADs, irrespective of whether these ADs
are former or not.
Yakov.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You
business or job. How does
one find out - prior to attending a meeting - that a mailing
list has been setup?
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
ne in OpenOffice 2.0
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.
e the meeting
more productive. It does no good to discuss text that almost everyone
already knows has problems.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
begin:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Doug Royer wrote:
... It does no good to discuss text that almost everyone
already knows has problems.
...it was created to ensure that everyone in the room is
actually discussing the same thing.
Yes.
Perhaps something like SVN could be available. I can '
.
Try CVS or SVN and diff - works for everyone.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
begin:vcard
fn:Doug Royer
n:Royer;Doug
org:INET-Consulting.com
adr
__
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Doug Royer | http://IntelliCal.com
---|-
Intelligent Calendars
begin:vcard
fn:Do
Sorry about my posts from the calendaring working group.
I mis-configured my mailer - it's fixed now.
-Doug
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
ecide.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Doug |Fax: (866)594-8574
| Cell: (208)520
ion to fail.
But I do not see that you are 'allowed in' [to a CS].
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Do
UST be ready for those
replies - AFTER THE BYE.
No lets not do that.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET
imate user who is retrying something they think
should/will work.
I have made no such claim. I claimed that if I detect
a hacker - I am dropping the connection and I think
that is good protocol practice.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
--
n that NO latency-param means "Never times
out"??
No. I am sayng I agree that zero has no meaning - I'll fix that.
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Of
g re-writted see separate e-mail on this list)
Simply send a reply.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.c
as a trusted CA for that
usage on M$ products.
I have no idea how to get M$ products to use that cert :-)
as I do not use M$ products. I know how to do that on Unix.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:37:23 MST, Doug Royer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If you are talking about TLS certs (not S/MIME certs) then the ISP can
issue them to the customer directly (be a CA for connections from their
customers over TLS connections). I have read th
Rosen, Brian wrote:
The problem with nroff is that there is no RFC to reference that
specifies how a document is formatted with nroff.
RFC 2223 has an nroff example, see "Appendix - RFC "nroff macros"
and section "3. Format Rules" says "ms&q
hat is the
current policy for releasing such email addresses.
Just offering a datum, not making any concrete suggestions.
#g
Graham Klyne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|---
;t know what is the
> current policy for releasing such email addresses.
>
> Just offering a datum, not making any concrete suggestions.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Before the change if I email [EMAIL PROTECTED], the email tool would
tell me immedatally
that no such host exists.
Now, it unconditionally sends the email, then later bounces. This is a
HUGE difference
in behaviour.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
ding it to the relay.
There is no rule that says that my smart MUA can not deliver email
itself. Not a bug.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612
like MUA's (and your ISP's relays)
is wrong.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Doug |Fax
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
No, its not valid for a mail client to make direct connections.
Can you site any RFC that says that?
RFC 2821 (proposed standard) sheds some light on that: (This isn't a
replacement to STD0010, but reveal
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
RFC 2821 (proposed standard) sheds some light on that: (This isn't a
replacement to STD0010, but reveals the disagreement on the roles of MTAs
and MUAs)
Your quote talks about conventions that may be used. It does not su
ey bozo, you are trying to send to a bogus host name".
The email may be encrypted, however that is not sufficient for some usage's.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ting the message the MTA and MUA MAY be the same
program. So NOT true.
This isn't broken. You won't send any messages because you won't get to
the "data" command. You will get an SMTP error code. The message is never
delivered to Verisign.
The fact that a 3rd party knows (o
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
You do not seem to be getting the message the MTA and MUA MAY be the same
program. So NOT true.
I do. Even in the same program, they are different functions. The MTA
should return a bounce. You should always get a bounce, in
email address.
Item (1) means they did find that what they were doing broke
things and they attempted to fix it.
And (2) may be FUD, but there is NO law that keeps them from
collecting the sender email address.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
valuable or a problem)
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that some NAT implementations break
chat and IM?
Streaming services may fail as well.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED
es to make
signatures useless.
Signed email already gets mangled by the ietf mail servers (AFAICT), so
what's one more bad idea in the mix?
Mine seems to make it. This one is (at least was) signed - I hope :-)
--
Doug Royer |
ith direct communication.
Masataka Ohta
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug |Fax: (86
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Doug Royer;
I agree. With my mortgage customers (MISMO.org related) I have
argued that private certs signed by their business partner is better
than a
cert issued by a well known cert company. Anyone can buy a cert from
the well known company.
As long as the cert
en
it is not delivered. They might retry later, however they do that anyway.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug
be any jabbering at IETF-59? There is absolutely no
information to be found anywhere, and connecting to
conference.ietf.jabber.com (which was the server of choice at past
meetings IIRC) room "plenary" doesn't produce results of any kind, not
even a timeout, for my client.
--
Doug
duce results of any kind, not
even a timeout, for my client.
well, i'm in several rooms right now... they all appear to be working...
Using which server?
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
---|--
There is an open-source effort:
> From: Eric Busboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:29:33 -0800
>
> I have created a new mailing list for this effort:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can subscribe to this list by sending this mail:
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Dennis Glatting wrote:
>
> Last night at the IESG's open mic at the Plenary I shared my concern
> on document life cycle. I am writing to clarify my comments and offer
> a suggestion I did not make at that time.
>.
>
> Once something is committed to paper in a WG a timer
> sta
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > Folks, this is just a standard feature of anonymous FTP servers.
>
> which shouldn't be called 'anonymous', then.
>
> Just because it's a standard feature doesn't make it a good
> idea. Speaking of invasions of privacy, I can't find where in
> Navigator to set the anonymou
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> After publishing your idea somewhere, for public critique, you have
> a year to file your patent application. After that it becomes a
> public prior art.
>
> Am I wrong?
Or if it is a little past a year, and you can show that you
have done your best - you can also ge
Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
>
[in part you said]
> I still object to your notion that it's not censorship since people can
> always go elsewhere. Where does this lead? I see the day when people
> can't publish a new directory service protocol because "The IETF has
> endorsed LDAP for d
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> At 09:58 16.04.2000 +0300, Musandu wrote:
> >Could hand held satelitte phones kill UMTS even before it takes root,
> > as the key tools for personal high bandwidth internet access?
>
> at the moment I think GSM killed Iridium, so the shoe may be on the other
>
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > Here in Japan we have 8 million non-WAP mobile internet users,
>
> uh, no. if you don't have IP to the phone, it's not mobile Internet.
> calling it Internet is just deceptive advertising.
I agree.
I have cell phone with an IP address. When it is powered on I can ping
> TSIGARIDAS PANAGIOTIS wrote:
>
> I believe, I found part of the following text in WAP Forum's WEB-pages.
> However, I think the answer -from business and technology point of view-
> is simple;
>
> Is WAP mobile Internet ? Yes and NO
>
> WAP is using existing Internet standards. The WAP arch
> Despite IETF snobbery, has decades of use. It has defects as
> a vacation program tamer, but those would be better fixed by coming up
> with a replacement than by ignoring the problem. IETF effort on that
> would be better spent than on some (but not all) of the newest SMTP
> elaborations.
> > ...
> > Something can be 'standard' and never used by anyone. Something can be
> > used by everyone and never a 'standard'.
>
> Perhaps according to the Church of De Jure Standards.
Well according to those in the IETF (This mailing list you keep
sending to). Did you expect the [EMAIL PROTECT
> I thought I was clear about proposing that the IESG or whomever add those
> nasty, evil, not entirely effective, sometimes harmful, anti-standard,
> profane, deprecated, left-coast Precedence: Bulk lines in the hope of
> reducing the plague of vacation noise.
Then write an internet draft and d
Why not just specify that dates/times are RFC2445 compliant?
The calsch WG spent a long time debating these issues.
In addition the date-time format used in RFC2445 is also
ISO-8601 based.
In addition the calsch WG has a plan (don't laugh too hard)
for the usage of time zones. This draft only m
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:16:09PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > However, many events are actually specified relative to a particular
> > timezone, and timezone offsets occasionally change with little advance
> > warning. As such, this representation may not be sufficient f
"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:
. ...
>
> Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be usable across
> the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to specify a protocol
> because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility features. I can't
> use 2445-compliant date-time
borderlt wrote:
> ...
> Is there anything official that can be done to someone who is
> copying names off of a blue sheet? Perhaps, get their name and
> not allow them to register for future meetings? Try to embarrass
> them by publishing their name? I have already decided that if
> I ev
Perhaps the thing to do is make the results of interoperability
testing public - only for shipping versions of software.
Developers can then develop and fix their bugs and not get bad
press about not yet shipped products. And when they do ship their
product it seems fair their competitors and th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...i configured my browser to detect ...
One big commercial browser and E-Mail tool is busted and
they have a bug in revocation checking. (not sure which versions)
Sometimes sites forget to update their certificates.
I think the reason that these bugs have existed fo
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Bush stuck the following note into the top of my latest message to
namedroppers:
...
You're perfectly aware
that many senders don't read messages to the list.
>...
Yet - you must be reading the list or you would not have seen it.
Please cry elsewhere.
--
67 matches
Mail list logo
