Gentlemen,
If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps you can do so in private
communication.
There are over 400 subscribers to this mailing list. For the most part these
are busy individuals that signed up for a research mailing list to
understand and contribute to solving the spam problem. They are not
interested in scoring a debate match between two men and a sidekick.
To all: With every post to this list, please ask yourself if your message
contains an idea or contribution that is worthy of sitting in the mailboxes
of 400 busy and intelligent individuals. Remember, we are here to stop (not
produce) unwanted messages.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Paul Q. Judge Paul(_dot_)Judge(_at_)CipherTrust(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
[mailto:Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:06 AM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:36 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> said:
For the record, the value in separating authentication and
authorization is uniquely a function of an environment
where there is
a great variation in the rights which individuals may hold. In
environments where there is no such variation in rights
there is not
an intrinsic value in authentication as a distinct step.
Hmm.. Vern, he's got us there...
A truly sad state of affairs, but he *does* have us there...
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg