IETF Discussion (date)
December 31, 2003
- Re: Propose some information retrieval protocols for Internet, Scott W Brim, 09:58
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone postthis for me? or allow me to post directly?], jfcm, 09:25
- Re: Propose some information retrieval protocols for Internet, Stephen Sprunk, 05:25
- Re: Propose some information retrieval protocols for Internet, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 04:14
- Re: Propose some information retrieval protocols for Internet, wang liang, 03:20
December 30, 2003
- Re: Most impressive Phish I've seen (Fw: Visa Security Update), Valdis . Kletnieks, 23:50
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Mike Jezierski - BOFH, 13:29
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Ken Hornstein, 12:12
- Re: Visa for South Korea, John Stracke, 11:53
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Ken Hornstein, 11:53
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Ken Hornstein, 11:31
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Michael StJohns, 10:49
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Ole J. Jacobsen, 10:40
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Ken Hornstein, 10:21
- Re: Visa for South Korea, Stephen Kent, 10:14
- Visa for South Korea, Ken Hornstein, 09:50
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone postthis for me? or allow me to post directly?], Tom Petch, 08:23
December 25, 2003
- fyi: Internet re-engineering projects & notions [WSJ, 100x100; Frankston], Jeff . Hodges, 21:39
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 21:36
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 21:36
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone postthis for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 21:36
- Re: Propose some information retrieval protocols for Internet, wang liang, 20:45
December 22, 2003
- ietf-mx, Brett Thorson, 16:07
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Dean Anderson, 13:32
- Re: need help from the ietf list...PKI, Doug Royer, 11:13
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone postthis for me? or allow me to post directly?], Tom Petch, 11:13
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], shogunx, 08:15
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], frederic . l, 07:57
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Mark Smith, 06:34
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:33
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:32
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:31
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:30
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:29
- Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Revocation of Posting Privileges for Hector Santos, Yakov Shafranovich, 06:28
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:28
- Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Revocation of Posting Privileges for Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 06:28
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Parry Aftab, 06:28
December 21, 2003
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Mark Smith, 23:54
- Re: need help from the ietf list...PKI, Masataka Ohta, 22:22
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], shogunx, 20:04
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Valdis . Kletnieks, 18:11
- RE: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Dean Anderson, 17:55
- Re:need help from the ietf list...PKI, Doug Royer, 15:35
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Dean Anderson, 14:57
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Masataka Ohta, 14:09
December 20, 2003
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Masataka Ohta, 22:21
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Mark Smith, 20:52
- Re: Never-ending arguments about mailing lists considered harmful (was: Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful), Dave Crocker, 20:51
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Dr. Jeffrey Race, 20:39
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Valdis . Kletnieks, 20:34
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Mark Smith, 20:07
- Re: [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], shogunx, 18:53
- [Fwd: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for me? or allow me to post directly?], Franck Martin, 16:58
December 18, 2003
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Valdis . Kletnieks, 23:11
- Re: What eMail is legitimate, John Leslie, 21:28
- Re: Hashing spam, Keith Moore, 20:25
- Dec03: Update on administration restructuring, Leslie Daigle, 20:05
- Re: Spam, Dr. Jeffrey Race, 18:35
- Re: Hashing spam, Keith Moore, 18:33
- Re: What eMail is legitimate, Vernon Schryver, 16:41
- Re: Hashing spam, kent, 16:37
- What eMail is legitimate, John Leslie, 16:03
- Re: Hashing spam, Keith Moore, 14:40
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Mark Allman, 14:40
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Mark Allman, 14:40
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Doug Royer, 13:34
- Re: Hashing spam, Vernon Schryver, 13:10
- layering and separation of function, Keith Moore, 12:58
- Re: Hashing spam, John Stracke, 12:44
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Jake Nelson, 12:41
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Stephen Sprunk, 12:28
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, John Kristoff, 12:25
- Re: Never-ending arguments about mailing lists considered harmful (was: Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful), Keith Moore, 12:24
- Re: Hashing spam, Vernon Schryver, 12:11
- Re: Hashing spam, Joe Abley, 11:40
- Hashing spam, escom, 11:17
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore, 11:17
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Leif Johansson, 10:42
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Dean Anderson, 10:33
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, John Leslie, 10:30
- Never-ending arguments about mailing lists considered harmful (was: Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful), John C Klensin, 10:15
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, 10:15
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore, 08:03
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Keith Moore, 07:45
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, John Stracke, 07:42
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Mark Allman, 07:29
- Re: SA / Spam. Facts., Jari Arkko, 02:37
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Pekka Savola, 02:28
- SA / Spam. Facts., Brett Thorson, 01:10
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, 00:55
December 17, 2003
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Spencer Dawkins, 21:20
- Spam, Bill Cunningham, 21:20
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Valdis . Kletnieks, 20:56
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Valdis . Kletnieks, 20:56
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, David Morris, 17:09
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Henrik Levkowetz, 16:47
- RE: Tag, You're It!, Eric Burger, 16:17
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore, 16:17
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Bill Strahm, 16:11
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore, 16:11
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Dean Anderson, 15:52
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Franck Martin, 15:49
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), shogunx, 15:39
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, grenville armitage, 15:16
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Theodore Ts'o, 14:54
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Dean Anderson, 14:35
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Dean Anderson, 14:20
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), shogunx, 13:49
- Re: Tag, You're It!, John Stracke, 13:23
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Valdis . Kletnieks, 13:13
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Valdis . Kletnieks, 13:12
- Re: Tag, You're It!, David Morris, 12:57
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, David Morris, 12:12
- Re: Tag, You're It!, James M Galvin, 11:57
- Re: Tag, You're It!, John Stracke, 11:29
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 11:24
- Re: Tag, You're It!, John Stracke, 10:55
- Re: Tag, You're It!, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 10:53
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered MailReturned to Sender), Clint Chaplin, 10:43
- Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Clint Chaplin, 10:41
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Ari Ollikainen, 09:40
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Keith Moore, 09:38
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Keith Moore, 09:38
- Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore, 09:38
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Valdis . Kletnieks, 08:51
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), John Stracke, 08:30
- Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Gordon Cook, 08:22
- More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender), Mark Smith, 08:05
- Re: Tag, You're It!, John Stracke, 08:05
- Tag, You're It! (was: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail), Dave Aronson, 07:51
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Mark Smith, 07:48
- Tag, You're It! (was: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail), Dave Aronson, 07:31
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Gordon Cook, 07:29
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Tim Chown, 02:02
- al/nlMatrixTopNControlTable <-> hlMatrixControlTable dependence?, chintan sheth, 01:54
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 01:48
December 16, 2003
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Pekka Savola, 23:12
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Sujit Menon, 20:48
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, David Morris, 20:47
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Franck Martin, 19:55
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Gordon Cook, 19:17
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 17:51
- Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Sandy Wills, 17:51
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 14:37
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 08:53
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 08:36
- Re: PKIs and trust, jfcm, 06:31
- RE: PKIs and trust, Al Arsenault, 06:18
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, jfcm, 04:06
December 15, 2003
- Re: PKIs and trust, Neal McBurnett, 20:44
- Re: PKIs and trust, Neal McBurnett, 20:06
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 19:19
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 18:35
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 17:58
- Re: PKIs and trust, Stephen Kent, 14:42
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 14:26
- RE: PKIs and trust, Al Arsenault, 14:23
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 14:16
- Re: PKIs and trust, Neal McBurnett, 13:53
- RE: PKIs and trust, Tony Hain, 13:11
- Re: PKIs and trust, Stephen Kent, 13:02
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 12:40
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 12:26
- Re: PKIs and trust, Stephen Kent, 08:12
- RE: PKIs and trust, Al Arsenault, 07:51
- RE: PKIs and trust, Al Arsenault, 07:48
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 07:31
- Re: Re[10]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Valdis . Kletnieks, 07:25
- Re: PKIs and trust, Noel Chiappa, 07:25
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Spencer Dawkins, 06:07
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 06:04
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, kent, 05:42
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 05:28
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, jamal, 05:24
- Re: PKIs and trust, Leif Johansson, 02:46
- Re: PKIs and trust, Eliot Lear, 02:33
- Re[10]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 02:31
- Re: Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Mark Smith, 00:46
- Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 00:25
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Valdis . Kletnieks, 00:23
- Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 00:23
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Mark Smith, 00:04
December 14, 2003
- Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 23:44
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Valdis . Kletnieks, 23:17
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 21:43
- Re[2]: PKIs and trust, Anthony G. Atkielski, 21:39
- Re: PKIs and trust, Valdis . Kletnieks, 19:58
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, jamal, 19:32
- Re: PKIs and trust, Franck Martin, 17:56
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 17:09
- Re: PKIs and trust, Masataka Ohta, 16:58
- Re: censorware on ietf mailing lists?, Franck Martin, 16:09
- Re: PKIs and trust, Franck Martin, 16:06
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Franck Martin, 16:05
- Re: censorware on ietf mailing lists?, Tim Chown, 16:05
- Re: PKIs and trust, Valdis . Kletnieks, 15:28
- Re: PKIs and trust, Leif Johansson, 15:12
- Re: PKIs and trust, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 15:06
- Re: PKIs and trust, Valdis . Kletnieks, 14:38
- Re: PKIs and trust, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 14:11
- Re: PKIs and trust, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 14:11
- Re: censorware on ietf mailing lists?, Keith Moore, 13:31
- Re: PKIs and trust, Leif Johansson, 13:10
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 13:07
- censorware on ietf mailing lists?, Keith Moore, 13:04
- Re: PKIs and trust, Valdis . Kletnieks, 12:57
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 12:55
- Re: PKIs and trust, Valdis . Kletnieks, 12:48
- Re: PKIs and trust, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 12:37
- Re: PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 12:22
- Re: PKIs and trust, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 11:23
- PKIs and trust, Keith Moore, 10:32
December 12, 2003
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Masataka Ohta, 20:19
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Fred Templin, 19:10
- Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 18:32
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Mark Smith, 18:13
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 17:46
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Masataka Ohta, 17:36
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Mark Smith, 16:15
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 15:33
- Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 14:34
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Theodore Ts'o, 14:27
- Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 14:26
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, John Kristoff, 13:55
- Re[2]: ITU takes over?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:24
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:24
- Re[2]: ITU takes over?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:24
- Re: Non terminated traffic..., niket, 13:10
- Re: Eating the canned from the new information society, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12:49
- RE: ITU takes over?, Tony Hain, 12:13
- RE: ITU takes over?, Tony Hain, 12:09
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Theodore Ts'o, 11:26
- RE: ITU takes over?, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 10:10
- RE: ITU takes over?, Stephen Kent, 10:10
- RE: ITU takes over?, Tony Hain, 09:47
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Sascha Lenz, 09:00
- Re: Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, James M Galvin, 06:08
- Re: Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Spencer Dawkins, 06:04
- Re: Eating the canned from the new information society, jfcm, 05:54
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Franck Martin, 00:28
- Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 00:21
- Re[12]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 00:20
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, kent, 00:09
- Re: Re[10]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Franck Martin, 00:04
December 11, 2003
- Re[10]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 23:54
- Re: [isdf] 1. New Report: "Understanding WSIS" (Hans Klein), Franck Martin, 23:34
- Re: Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Franck Martin, 23:34
- Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 22:41
- Re[8]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 22:41
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Mark Smith, 19:36
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Theodore Ts'o, 18:13
- Eating the canned from the new information society, Dan Kolis, 16:25
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Tim Chown, 15:42
- Re: Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Sally Floyd, 15:15
- Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Einar Stefferud, 14:35
- Re[6]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 14:26
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Sally Floyd, 14:13
- WSIS info, Chip Sharp, 14:07
- Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Theodore Ts'o, 14:07
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Theodore Ts'o, 14:07
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Anthony G. Atkielski, 14:00
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Vernon Schryver, 13:36
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Franck Martin, 13:33
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Scott Bradner, 13:17
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Valdis . Kletnieks, 13:13
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:12
- Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:09
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Scott Bradner, 12:55
- Re: Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Valdis . Kletnieks, 12:28
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Stig Venaas, 12:28
- Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Anthony G. Atkielski, 11:58
- Re[2]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Anthony G. Atkielski, 11:48
- Re: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used, Simon Leinen, 11:23
- Re: Non terminated traffic..., Simon Leinen, 08:36
- www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used [was: Re: ITU takes over?], Simon Leinen, 08:32
- RE: [isdf] 1. New Report: "Understanding WSIS" (Hans Klein), zielinskic, 08:03
- Re: [isdf] 1. New Report: "Understanding WSIS" (Hans Klein), S Woodside, 08:03
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Joao Damas, 08:02
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda, 08:02
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda, 08:02
December 10, 2003
- Re: [isdf] 1. New Report: "Understanding WSIS" (Hans Klein), Franck Martin, 20:40
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Masataka Ohta, 20:40
- Re: Non terminated traffic..., Joe Abley, 17:43
- RE: Non terminated traffic..., Franck Martin, 17:22
- Re: Non terminated traffic..., Joe Abley, 17:08
- RE: Non terminated traffic..., bill, 17:08
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Franck Martin, 15:53
- Non terminated traffic..., Franck Martin, 15:53
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Franck Martin, 15:08
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, jfcm, 12:20
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 08:48
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda, 07:31
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, leo vegoda, 07:29
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Bill Manning, 06:38
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, jfcm, 04:24
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 03:05
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Kurtis Lindqvist, 00:37
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Kurtis Lindqvist, 00:28
December 09, 2003
- [Fwd: TAG announces Last Call review of Architecture Document], Michael Mealling, 17:18
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Franck Martin, 15:04
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Dean Anderson, 13:41
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Dean Anderson, 13:40
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Bill Manning, 12:58
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Dean Anderson, 12:58
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, jfcm, 10:43
- Re: Worst case question I guess, jfcm, 10:43
- Re: ITU takes over?, Masataka Ohta, 09:00
- Re: Worst case question I guess, Dan Kolis, 07:54
- Re: ITU takes over?, shogunx, 07:54
- Re: ITU takes over?, jfcm, 06:40
- Re: ITU takes over?, Ole J. Jacobsen, 01:38
- Re[2]: ITU takes over?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 01:34
- Re: ITU takes over?, Einar Stefferud, 01:32
December 08, 2003
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Michael Richardson, 23:58
- Re: ITU takes over?, Valdis . Kletnieks, 22:16
- Re: ITU takes over?, shogunx, 21:07
- Re: Re[2]: just a brief note about anycast, Franck Martin, 21:06
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 21:02
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 20:56
- Re[2]: just a brief note about anycast, Anthony G. Atkielski, 20:39
- Re[2]: ITU takes over?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 20:39
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Franck Martin, 20:39
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Randy Presuhn, 20:21
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Paul Vixie, 19:51
- Re: ITU takes over?, Mark Atwood, 19:23
- Re: ITU takes over?, vinton g. cerf, 18:46
- RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar, 18:28
- Re: ITU takes over?, Franck Martin, 18:08
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Dean Anderson, 18:07
- Re: ITU takes over?, Ole J. Jacobsen, 18:06
- Re: ITU takes over?, Eric A. Hall, 18:06
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 18:02
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 17:49
- Re: ITU takes over?, vinton g. cerf, 17:23
- FWD: ICANN GNSO Request for public comment on Regsitry Services, John C Klensin, 17:08
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Mark Prior, 17:08
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Ted Hardie, 17:08
- Re: ITU takes over?, vinton g. cerf, 17:00
- Re: Worst case question I guess, John C Klensin, 17:00
- RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: nationalsecurity, Jeroen Massar, 17:00
- RE: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar, 16:29
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Franck Martin, 16:29
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Zefram, 16:08
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 16:02
- Re: ITU takes over?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 16:02
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 15:46
- Worst case question I guess, Dan Kolis, 15:39
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 15:39
- RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar, 15:14
- RE: just a brief note about anycast, Steve Schieberl, 15:14
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks, 14:54
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Randy Presuhn, 14:46
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 14:46
- Re: national security, Joe Abley, 14:46
- ITU takes over?, Noel Chiappa, 14:34
- Re: [ipv6-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Gert Doering, 14:34
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Zefram, 14:27
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, John Stracke, 14:15
- RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Jeroen Massar, 14:11
- Re: national security, Masataka Ohta, 14:05
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 14:01
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, Bill Manning, 13:43
- Re: national security, Masataka Ohta, 13:33
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Paul Vixie, 13:11
- Re: just a brief note about anycast, jfcm, 12:50
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Bill Manning, 12:26
- Re: national security, Joe Abley, 10:17
- Re: national security, Joe Abley, 10:17
- just a brief note about anycast, Eliot Lear, 09:14
- Re: national security, Dean Anderson, 08:35
December 07, 2003
- Re: Re[3]: national security, jfcm, 19:08
- Re: national security, Franck Martin, 16:47
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Paul Vixie, 14:40
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 14:30
- Re: national security, Paul Vixie, 13:05
- Re: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 05:30
December 06, 2003
- Re: national security - proposed follow-up, grenville armitage, 23:49
- Re: national security, Paul Vixie, 18:37
- Re: national security, Bill Manning, 17:09
- Re: national security, Jaap Akkerhuis, 16:47
- Re: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 16:23
- Re: Re[3]: national security, vinton g. cerf, 16:17
- Re: national security, Dean Anderson, 15:19
- Re: national security - proposed follow-up, jfcm, 15:11
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Jaap Akkerhuis, 15:11
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., ned . freed, 11:21
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Stephen Sprunk, 08:28
- Re: national security, jfcm, 08:22
- Re: Re[3]: national security, jfcm, 08:22
December 05, 2003
- Re: national security, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, 23:09
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., Valdis . Kletnieks, 17:43
- Re: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 15:29
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., stanislav shalunov, 15:17
- Re: national security, jfcm, 14:36
- Synopsis of Internet relevant White house document(s) regarding security, Dan Kolis, 12:56
- RE: SMTP compressed protocol..., Eric Burger, 11:50
- FYI - US DoC NIST Workshop on SPAM, Richard Shockey, 11:05
- Re: national security, Matt Larson, 10:44
- Re: Re[3]: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 10:44
- Re: Re[3]: national security, John C Klensin, 09:35
- Re: national security, Dean Anderson, 09:29
- Re: Re[3]: national security, jfcm, 08:11
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., John Stracke, 06:54
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., Spencer Dawkins, 06:21
- Re: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum, 04:41
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 04:36
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., John C Klensin, 01:46
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., stanislav shalunov, 00:50
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., John C Klensin, 00:35
December 04, 2003
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., Carsten Bormann, 23:43
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., stanislav shalunov, 23:42
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 23:36
- Re: SMTP compressed protocol..., John C Klensin, 23:24
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 23:24
- Re: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 23:24
- Re: national security, Franck Martin, 21:25
- SMTP compressed protocol..., Franck Martin, 21:06
- Re: national security, jfcm, 20:34
- Re: national security, Dean Anderson, 20:17
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, jfcm, 19:59
- Re: national security, Paul Vixie, 19:13
- Re: national security, Franck Martin, 18:01
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, grenville armitage, 17:12
- RE: An apology of sorts, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\), 17:12
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Masataka Ohta, 17:08
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 17:08
- Re: national security, Franck Martin, 16:38
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Franck Martin, 16:38
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 15:48
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Franck Martin, 15:37
- Re: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 15:32
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, John C Klensin, 15:32
- Re: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 12:07
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, jfcm, 11:43
- RE: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Steve Silverman, 10:23
- RE: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Mike S, 10:23
- Re: national security, jfcm, 08:48
- Re: national security, jfcm, 08:45
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), jfcm, 08:41
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, jfcm, 08:41
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Mike S, 07:47
- An apology of sorts, Dan Kolis, 06:42
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Dan Kolis, 06:40
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 06:40
- Re[8]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 06:32
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 05:43
- Re: Re[6]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Johnny Eriksson, 05:23
- Re[6]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 02:23
December 03, 2003
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Paul Vixie, 23:00
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, USPhoenix, 21:58
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 21:39
- Re: Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Valdis . Kletnieks, 20:54
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Franck Martin, 20:12
- Ietf ITU DNS stuff III, Dan Kolis, 18:51
- Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Dean Anderson, 18:00
- Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 17:44
- Re: Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum, 17:32
- Ietf ITU DNS stuff, Dan Kolis, 16:46
- Re: arguments against NAT?, grenville armitage, 16:22
- Re: national security, Dean Anderson, 16:10
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:49
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Leif Johansson, 12:40
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Armando L. Caro Jr., 11:36
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Armando L. Caro Jr., 11:35
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Bob Hinden, 11:31
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Joe Touch, 11:24
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Keith Moore, 11:18
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Valdis . Kletnieks, 11:09
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Michel Py, 10:38
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Jeff Johnson, 10:30
- Re: Future IETF Meetings, Spencer Dawkins, 06:50
- RE: Future IETF Meetings, Susan Harris, 06:28
- Re: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 01:38
December 02, 2003
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Masataka Ohta, 23:24
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Michel Py, 22:12
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Michel Py, 22:10
- Re: national security, Franck Martin, 20:34
- RE: Future IETF Meetings, Michel Py, 20:26
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta, 18:55
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 16:50
- Re[8]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski, 16:48
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 16:48
- Re: media type?, Nathaniel Borenstein, 16:44
- Re: Future IETF Meetings, Pekka Savola, 16:41
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum, 16:34
- Re: Re[3]: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 16:30
- Re: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 16:20
- Re: Re[6]: national security, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, 16:20
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum, 15:47
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Keith Moore, 15:47
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum, 13:58
- Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:48
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski, 13:43
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Keith Moore, 13:07
- RE: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Schiro, Dan, 13:03
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Joe Touch, 12:53
- Re: arguments against NAT? - what breaks, Joe Touch, 12:53
- IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Keith Moore, 12:23
- Re: arguments against NAT? - what breaks, Doug Royer, 12:05
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Paul Vixie, 11:54
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Keith Moore, 10:54
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Joe Touch, 10:17
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Melinda Shore, 09:57
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Valdis . Kletnieks, 09:14
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Masataka Ohta, 09:09
- RE: arguments against NAT?, Michel Py, 09:09
- Re[2]: arguments against NAT?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 08:30
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Eliot Lear, 08:04
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Zefram, 07:32
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Melinda Shore, 07:30
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Spencer Dawkins, 07:09
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Spencer Dawkins, 06:42
- Re: arguments against NAT?, Anthony G. Atkielski, 06:15
- arguments against NAT?, Zefram, 05:28
December 01, 2003
- Re: national security, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law, 19:57
- Re: national security, jfcm, 19:05
- Re: national security, John C Klensin, 16:42
- Re: national security, Michael H. Lambert, 16:42
- Re[2]: national security, Philip J. Nesser II, 16:27
- Re: national security, Paul Vixie, 16:16
- ICANN but I CAN'T, sometimes, Dan Kolis, 14:01
- U.S. Anti-spam Bill and the IETF, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:42
- Re: national security, vinton g. cerf, 05:48
- Re: national security, Masataka Ohta, 02:58
- Re: national security, Karl Auerbach, 01:18