On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
threading.
Note, threading works
Hi, Bryan:
1) " ... Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I
think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ... ":
I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed
referee.
> I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed referee.
> For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette
> established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously distracted our
> attention from the topic of essence. You now have demons
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:58 PM Bryan Fields mailto:br...@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
>> Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new
>> thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
>>
>> Trying to follow the conversa
It appears that Peter Potvin via NANOG
said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>*audible sigh*
>
>Yet another useless thread added to my Gmail inbox because of a changed
>subject line.
>
>Can we please stop doing this for conversations that are about the same
>topic?
I don't think the rest of us are obliged to arr
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 10:21 AM John Levine wrote:
> If I were you, I would call up Google and demand that they fix this bug.
What bug? In a decade and a half, Abe's bizarre subject changing
behavior is the only time GMail has failed to group messages exactly
as I find convenient. It's doing the
>
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
Well, no. Asterisks added for emphasis.
This specification is intended as a definition of what message
>content format is to be passed between systems. Though some message
>
Bryan:
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
should work per the RFC appendix.
Actually, no it's not. RFC5322 reads: "This specification is not intended
to dictate ... any of the characteristics of user interface programs that
create or read messages".
5822 h
Hi, Ryan:
1) " ... it accounts for 40% of the traffic at Google. ":
Perhaps you were referring to the following?
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
2) If so, your quotation is correct, except there are some hidden
stories below the surface:
A. When you G
Hi, Mike:
1) "... only private use. ...":
The EzIP deployment plan is to use 240/4 netblock as "Semi-Public"
addresses for the existing CG-NAT facility. With many RG-NATs (Routing /
Residential Gateway -NATs) already capable of being 240/4 clients thru
the upgrade to OpenWrt, no IoT on
If 50٪ of the servers and 50% of the clients can do IPv6, the amount of
IPv6 traffic will be around 25% since both ends have to do IPv6.
If you're running an IPv6 enabled server you'll see 50% of your traffic as
IPv6 in the above scenario. Likewise, if you are on an IPv6 connected
client, then y
Hi, Randy:
1) " ... unfortunately i already had grey hair in the '90s and was in
the room for all this, ... ":
My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if IPv6
was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition from IPv4.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-14 23
Hang on... So EzIP is now about using 240/4 as CGNAT space? Wait, I'm
lost...
With CGNAT, there is either public IP space in front of the gateway, or
private space behind it. There is no such thing as "semi-private" space in
the world of CGNAT, as devices with public IPs can't directly access
devi
To my knowledge IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. Anyone, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong. There are just short of 4.3 billion IPv4
addresses, where the number of IPv6 addresses is 39 digits long.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi, Randy:
> My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if
> IPv6 was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition
> from IPv4.
i'll try again
there was a transition plan; it was dual stack. i did not say it was a
*good* transition plan.
the plan's fatal flaw was that i
- Original Message -
> From: "Abraham Y. Chen"
> Hi, Bryan:
[ ... ]
> 2) From the Wikipedia explanation of RFC5822, I as a ThunderBird
> user, really have nothing to do with the Message-ID that it puts on my
> MSGs nor how does it make use of such to display the threads. And, my
> Su
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
>
> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> "Re:") then you intend to st
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:10:23AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 10:21 AM John Levine wrote:
> > If I were you, I would call up Google and demand that they fix this bug.
>
> What bug? In a decade and a half, Abe's bizarre subject changing
> behavior is the only time
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 06:18, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
If 50٪ of the servers and 50% of the clients can do IPv6, the amount of
> IPv6 traffic will be around 25% since both ends have to do IPv6.
>
This assumes cosmological principle applies to the Internet, b
+1
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Brett O'Hara
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Cc: Chen, Abraham Y. ; NANOG
Subject: Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re:
IPv4
20 matches
Mail list logo
