ke an
experiment to me, IETF or otherwise.
I'd suggest the most sensible thing to do is to reclassify both of them
as Informational, to document what you might find in some TXT records,
publish them, and be done with it.
Regards,
John Levine
>What exactly do you think needs to be changed with the SPF draft?
If you want to document what people do with SPF now, nothing other
than making it Informational.
If you actually want to do experiments, change the record format so it
won't be confused with Sender-ID or anything else and you can
I hope the message here is not that we should restrict ourselves to
developing technology that is idiot-proof, since a sufficiently
determined idiot, of which there are many, will do idiotic things with
any technology that we never in a million years would have
anticipated.
However, ...
>The diff
ign S/MIME root is bad, and about a hundred other things and wrap
it all up in about 2014 just as the last e-mail user gives up and
switches to one of three proprietary IM systems.
So can people give me guidance? What problem are we trying to solve
with the danger warnings?
Regards,
John
>Can we also conclude that SSL/TLS has failed as a tool for general
>communication?
If we were holding it to the same requirements that some appear to be
asking for DKIM, I think we'd have to.
There is a certain amount of SMTP over TLS, an entirely automated
application, and the net hasn't collap
>Now PDF does qualify but it is basicly an extended version of
>PostScript. Since IETF already accepts postscript, the question
>should be is there a need for features in PDF that are not
>in standard postscript. If there is then we can talk about it.
There is, actually. Postscript is well specif
> NeuStar is the ".us" Registy and has entered into an open root
> agreement with the GSMA, supporting the ".gprs" TLD. That the IETF
> pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a
> political signal.
Oh, no, not this again. Neustar's .gprs TLD exists only on a special
purpose priv
>Here is the revised proposed charter text:
Thanks for pulling this together.
If I had unlimited time to waste, I might niggle about a word or two,
but it's fine as is, and I look forward to moving ahead and getting
some work done.
R's,
John
___
Ietf
> Roughly we need to consider how DKIM is used, not just define a
> technology. We need to talk about bad uses of DKIM as soon as we
> are aware that they are sufficinetly likely that they are worth
> considering.
Here's a concrete suggestion: it is clear that the bad uses of DKIM
people have men
> if something like DKIM is successful, I would expect an equilibrium
> where filters are set extremely high and nearly all good senders
> authenticate their messages because otherwise they stand an
> unacceptably high chance of having them rejected.
That seems plausible at some point, maybe five
> Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which
> of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm "none."
At some level that's clearly true, since RFCs are emerging at a brisk
clip.
I've seen two different sets of concerns.
One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately b
>o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,
In terms of the number of people, it's tiny. I can only think of
three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
fingers.
On the other hand, the amou
>> IPv4-only hosts can see the record even if they can't
>> directly send mail to that address. and there's no reason
>> ("obvious" or otherwise) why a MTA should reject mail from
>> a host just because that MTA can't directly route to it
Well, other than the practical fact that it's almost
>> Not to be cynical or anything, but regardless of what we decree, I
>> think it's vanishingly unlikely that many systems on the public
>> Internet* will accept mail from a domain with only an record.
> I think it's vanishing unlikely that email will be useful at all, if spam
> filter wri
>But please indulge me --- exactly what is the benefit of deprecating
>the "A" fallback, and/or not doing a lookup on the record if the
>MX record doesn't exist?
Under the current setup, any domain that has an A record is presumed
to be a mail domain, and if it's not, there's no good way to a
>> to non-mail domains is significant. I have at least one host name
>> that was never a mail domain, but since it used to appear in usenet
>> headers it gets over 30,000 spams a day, every day.
>
>I'm not convinced you've identifed causality ... only correlation.
The causality is that its name w
ar of getting spammed is some
combination of anecdotal and ancient, since it's rather unlikely
that anyone is stealing them in the meeting rooms.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.jo
>> > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide a mechanism for legitimate technical
>> > participants to bypass moderation, challenge-response, or other techniques
>> > that would interfere with a prompt technical debate on the mailing list
>> > without requiring such participants to receive list traffic.
advantage to getting an ISSN other than the tiny
effort to update the publishing tools to put it in a header line, but
I also don't see any benefit.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http:
tandard, or PASC which maintains
the POSIX standards. Neither of these groups is related to the IETF.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener sc
>In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers
>been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use?
Perhaps you might want to compare the draft with RFC 2821, which was
published over seven years ago, and then reconsider the question.
Regards,
John Levine,
>> It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606,
>> should be either reserved or blocked.
In view of Recommendation 4 in ICANN's new GTLD process document, why
do you think this is necessary?
You have read the report, haven't you?
Regards,
John Le
>* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative
>* Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized
Ahem:
* Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized
>* Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative
>language, even in drafts.
Yes,
> This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means
> that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things
> different than we are.
One of the few ICANN committees that actually works is the SSAC, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It includes a lot of
people
even better.
In any event, as I said before, although there's a lot not to like
about ICANN, the chances of them doing anything technically
destructive remains low.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Inform
ke changes to bring them in line with
modern practice, even changes that are compatible with equally ancient
STD documents.
So, yeah, spam stinks, but it's not going away, and arguments that you
shouldn't use a technique today because it didn't work in 1998 don't
cut it.
that's hardly a justification for stupidity.
I entirely agree. Where we evidently don't agree is about what's stupid.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
mendations to guide the process. You must have
read them, since you are concerned about this proposal. Do you think
that recommendations 3, 4, and 20 are adequate to address this
problem? If not, why not?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
than a private issue between
the TLD and its registrants?
Also keep in mind that most of those apex records are in ccTLDs over which
ICANN and the IETF have no authority, so no matter what the we were to
say, they're not going away.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetr
bout it? ICANN has plenty
of real problems on its plate, like registrars who steal people's names
and won't give them back. This isn't one of them.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayma
The problem is that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not globally unique.
MIT users will have problems talk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when "ai" means
Anguilla. The is a current security issue.
If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
mean [
Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.
No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.
The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.
Someone claiming to be you said:
>What will be the impact of having, perhaps,
>
> 1) millions of entries in the root servers, and
Let's start by considering thousands of entries, since I see little
reason to expect even that many from ICANN's current plans.
> 2) constant traffic banging on those servers?
The latest CAIDA
aise it above thousands, and a zone with a few thousand entries
should be well within the capacity of any DNS server.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Ma
Conversely, if root server traffic is an issue, getting networks to
clean up their DNS traffic would be much more effective than limiting
the number of TLDs.
sounds good. and why wouldn't "cleaning up DNS traffic" include
refusing to refer any single-label query (for any record type other than
ago, to avoid the
selection bias of people whose configuration preferences were set on the
T1 backbone.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wi
>Given that problem statement, a simple solution would be for RFCs to
>be able to reference art files archived by the RFC Editor using
>format-neutral URLs. Initially, those art files could be GIFs, PNGs,
>or PDFs. Years from now, when there are no commonly-available readers
>for a particular i
Hi. All of these questions have come up before on the various lists
where this draft was developed, but I suppose it's worth going through
them again.
>On the other hand, I have a few questions: the first one, why
>"Proposed standard"? Is it really a good idea to standardize these
>lists (most be
>>The IANA Considerations section is missing. I suggest registering
the header as specified in RFC 3864.
>
>We purposely did not make this extensible in this document.
I think you're talking past each other here. I read SM's message
as adding VBR-Info: to the list of known mail header lines he
> standardizing them and formally recommending their use
I'm not aware of any language in the current draft that recommends
that people use DNSBLs. What it does say is that if you use or
publish DNSBLs, here's how they work so you can, you know,
interoperate and all that. As I'm sure everyone is
>Today, messages can just disappear on the way to the user's mailbox
>(often at or after that last-hop MTA). They do so without NDNs out
>of fear of blowback, and they do so for two main reasons. ...
You know, DNSBLs make mystery disappearances less likely, not more.
The DNSBLs that most people
>Several years ago, my employer's e-mail spam filter blocked the Unicode
>mailing list as a "suspect site." Earlier this year, GoDaddy (registrar
>of my domain name) did the same, and it took months to figure out what
>was going on.
What connection does any of this have to do with DNSBLs? The
>Indeed; reputation system for the reputation servers! Of course, if
>DNSBL operaters were to find the that shoe was on the other foot, such
>that their reputations were getting judged by the same criteria that
>sites are declared "unclean" (i.e., by unauthenticated rumor), ...
Why do you assume
> I've got two separate and unrelated incidents in the last 10 days in
> which RBL lists have decided to block some (but not all) of
> Comcast's outbound mail servers. ...
I remain baffled by this line of argument.
If anecdotes about DNSBLs not run the way you like disqualify even
describing th
>Standard Track and BCP RFCs are part of the IETF document
>stream. The proposed IRTF document stream (draft-irtf-rfcs) doesn't
>create a new class of documents called IRTF BCPs.
Quite right. That's why we're having the argument here about
draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.
>Shouldn't the headings of
> That's a rather narrow view. Very large numbers of people think that
> Instant Messaging is a far superior alternative to DNSBLs, not to
> mention VoIP, web forums and other variations on the theme.
I can certainly believe that there are people who think that, but if
those very large numbers of
>I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
>development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
>that can be implemented in email products without known patent
>encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. Email
>is simply too important to allow
ckets via the dialup. Since spamming involves a lot
more outbound than inbound traffic, this still let them use most of
the T1. When the dialup ISP noticed and cancelled the dialup account,
they'd just switch to another one, typically using a stack of free
trial AOL disks.
Regards,
John
>Given that the well known DNSBL causing me grief totally ignores my
>requests for removal, ...
I'd be interested in knowing what DNSBL it is. Spamhaus PBL?
MAPS/Trend DUL? SORBS? Something else?
All the anonymous denunciations here are getting a bit tedious.
R's,
John
_
I documented the pair of test addresses, to defend
against that. It's certainly a band-aid, but like real life band-aids
it does the job without making things worse and easily enough that
people are actually likely to do it. What you're proposing is a skin
graft, which would be more elegan
>For instance, what would happen if mail servers provided feedback to
>both senders (on a per message basis in the form of NDNs)
Well, since 95% of all mail is spam, and all the spam has fake return
addresses, you'd increase the amount of bogus NDNs by more than an
order of magnitude. No thanks.
>The expectation is that error messages generated from TXT records
>contain the actual IP addresses which triggered the DNSBL lookups. As
>a result, if you list a /16 (say), you need publish 65,536 different
>TXT records.
Some do, some don't. In any event I agree that DNSSEC is not ideally
suite
Nothing personal, but you could hardly ask for a better
illustration.
For one thing, this isn't a case of broken DNSBLs, it's a case of
getting what you asked for.
Rather than using shared DNSBLs, this tiny host on a non-profit public
access network is desperately trying to run its own spam filte
F Trust to take it upon itself to get new licenses from as many
old authors or their heirs as it can.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More
nor ways. This would run us into the swamp of what legal
system we're subject to.
I do have to say that this whole argument seems awfully hypothetical
to me. No sensible person will ever sue for his text being reused
from an RFC, non-sensible people will sue no matter what we do.
Regards,
J
>And, while IANAL, my understanding from what we've been told
>repeatedly is that "fair use exemption" is a US concept, so your
>sentence should stop after "significant re-use of material"
Many other countries have similar doctrines, often called "fair
dealing" in common law or written as specific
>> What about senders from small emerging market countries having a very
>> hard time getting any widely accepted assurance group to vouch for them?
>
>Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
>universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
>$5000/ye
>If the technology is deployed by 100% of the community providing
>professional email operations, both on the sending and the receiving
>sides, as Dave expects, ...
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the "community providing professional email operation" to
>IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
>to actually initiate a dialog.
That is my recollection as well. Given the cut and paste errors in
many of the messages, I don't get the impression that our new friends,
polite though they may be, are particularly well informed
tion number 20060174323
Or the WIPO version is here:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=US2006001342&wo=2006081085&DISPLAY=STATUS
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.c
> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
> all interactions?
In Dean's case, yes.
There's a great deal of history here.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>This is NOT the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
>You may think that filibustering is normal and appreciated and
>democratic. It is not.
This is the core of the issue. The point of this forum is to get work
done. The rules for participation are not hard to figure out, and are
>The key phrase here is "you are informed." You have to be informed
>and agree to it. ...
Can I politely encourage people who are not lawyers to refrain from
expressing legal opinions here, or even worse stating legal opinions
as though they were facts?
I know just enough about copyright law to
>Replace "Mr. Morfin" with "Dr. King" and see how it sounds.
Have we just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's Law?
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
>stream of consistently productive messages.
We've certainly been made aware of that.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>This statement, "The Wyndham is less than a ten minute walk from the
>Hilton Anatole." is a bit odd -- at least Maporama prints out the
>distance as 22.7 kilometers, 16 mins with a car. Did I do something
>wrong?
Whassa matter, 23 km is too far to walk? Wimp.
Visiting Dallas without a car i
>Cue ten further emails describing various Google Earth mashups that
>correlate restaurants with capacity, wait time and geek acceptability
If we could morph it into a signup system that distributed people
according to restauant capacity and avoided the problem that someone
says "I hear there's a
>So, in the context of a location that may be considered isolated, I
>think it might be useful to consider this an experiment, and judge
>the reaction of the community after the meeting towards this
>variable.
A reasonable question, but it probably needs to be picked out a little
more than that.
>We propose an experiment based on RFC 3933 allowing, in addition to
>ASCII text as a normative input/output format, PDF as an additional
>normative output format.
There are a lot of different formats called PDF. There are PDF 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. There's the new PDF/A archival profile along
>First and foremost, if the input format is PDF, how will the RFC Editor
>edit the document? PDF documents are not editable.
Well, this particular proposal only makes PDF an output format, but
the question is still a good one. Without an editorial process to
create the PDFs, it's not much of an
on this?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_
>What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or
>derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted
>whether older RFCs were "in the public domain". That's pretty far
>removed from "republication in their entirety".
Actually, what he has in mind is indeed republica
>> Walking time from the hotel to the conference site is 6 minutes.
>> The advantage of the Delta as compared to "closer" hotels
>> is that the walk can be done without going outside
>
>Is that important? Are there weather or crime issues?
Depends how hard it's raining.
R's,
John
___
iment. If we agree that
better graphics are important, there are simpler and less risky ways
to accomodate them.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
&quo
> Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design
> goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite
> before producing a reference implementation.
The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that
people throw up their hands in exasperation and
The Aerobus runs from the airport to the central bus terminal and
costs C$13 OW, $22.75 RT. From the central bus terminal there are
free shuttles to most downtown hotels. The web site tells all:
http://www.autobus.qc.ca/anglais/aeroportuaire_an.html
As far as getting from the hotel to the confe
>If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
>crews.
No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired replacements
quite a while ago. While I think there is some chance that you would
show up for a Northwest flight and find that the airline had suddenly
gone out
two
seconds ago and FTP retrieval from ftp.isi.edu worked just fine. I'm
using the fairly vanilla ftp client that comes with FreeBSD, with no
special switches.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman w
>Hi, will the *.ppt slides be converted again to *.html ?
For the impatient yet theologically pure, OpenOffice 2.0.4 does a
surprisingly good job of importing ppt files and exporting either html
or PDF.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ht
receded it, and doesn't
break anything. Maybe some of my hacks won't work with DNSSEC, but
we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http:
f the
alternatives are equally feasible technically.
So, basically, I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. The DNS
of 2006 is not the DNS of 1992. Deal with it, we're not going back.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
e then. Visit http://www.taugh.com, where it's white paper #1 near
the bottom of the page.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, May
d to early web technology. Tnx.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
PS: In case
;ll=50.092682,14.443717&spn=0.009375,0.016673
On the other hand, the Hilton web site just offered me a room for IETF
week at E152 which appears to be the IETF rate, so it's not all that
sold out.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Interne
>I believe there are similar issues for travel to the US --
Right. Any time you are flying to or from the US or to or from the
UK, you can expect the inane rule that liquids must fit in a baggie to
apply.
So if you want that cheap bottle of Scotch to dull the pain of
interminable BOF sessions, g
>It does appear to be a legitimate attempt at a niche social networking
>site targeting networking engineers, but I'm not sure we need one.
If we can't do social networking via existing communication channels
like, you know, e-mail, we're pretty lousy networking engineers.
>Since section 5 "Message Submission Authentication/Authorization
>Technologies" mentions only SMTP AUTH and TLS, does it mean that
>authentication by IP addresses is forbidden? I ask so because it is
>currently the most common way to weakly authenticate local users. Is
>it covered by "Depending up
For people who are flying into Midway, just take the orange line
subway from Midway to Adams/Wabash.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine
>I don't see whay you can't sell your phone number.
You can sell your 800/888/877/866 number, but not your POTS number.
Toll free numbers are more like domain names, in that you have to find
a provider to host it and to put an entry into the DNS-like database
that phone switches consult to decide
>Given that paypa1.com was the very first phishing attack I saw, and
>that there was a cert...
Really? It belongs to ebay.
But you are quite right, getting an SSL cert is so easy these days that
it's not useful for much. Maybe the green bar certs that are supposed
to be harder to get will help
t phone's screen.
I have a list of 250,000 people here (scraped off web sites) to whom
I'd just love to make recorded phone calls. Can I use your protocol
to ask them all if it's OK? If not, why not, and how are you going to
stop me?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
e.g., that well chosen DNSBLs can knock out 80% of the spam
with essentially no false positives, which is true, they don't believe
it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnl
>>> 1025 mail addresses have "confirmed" their address. I would bet that
>>> at least 20% of the confirmed are spam addresses (or autoconfirmed
>>> addresses)
>>
>> Thoughts?
Now that I think about it some more, regardless of the merits of TMDA
or lack thereof, if those addresses aren't sending a
>how many of us are now sending with DKIM or Microsoft's scheme? It
>might be worthwhile making ietf.org apply a policy to senders that
>would recognize normal participants and disallow known spam domains.
Um, spammers haven't sent mail from "known spam domains" since about
2001. These days s
>They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,
The ICANN meeting a couple of years ago was at the Bayshore, and I
stayed at the Renaissance because the Bayshore was full. When we were
there, the weather was unseasonably severe, with temperatures plunging
below 0 C and snow blown int
> The descriptions of the venue make clear that, once again, the IETF
> is meeting in a ghetto. Periodic bus service doesn't counteract
> that.
If you look at the Google map and satellite photos of the venue, there
appears to be quite a lot of residential and commercial development
just east of i
copy edits always, and I repeat ALWAYS, make the writing
more consistent and readable.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitze
> I'm on the phone to Doubletree reservations trying to make a
> reservation for the 9th to the 14th, and she tells me that there are
> no rooms in the IETF block on the 13th, ...
She came back and said there are no rooms at the Doubletree at all on the
13th, not at the rack rate or anything. I
ds at
Hilton to make the block rectangular and have 100 rooms every night,
not just some of them?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitze
>I agree with you that removing him would be the simplest approach, but I
>can see possible situations where NOT following the process could lead
>us into legal trouble.
Anyone can sue in the US for any reason, but this is silly.
The IAOC made extensive attempts to contact him in many ways, wit
1 - 100 of 371 matches
Mail list logo
