IETF Discussion Archive - Date Index

[Prev Page] [Next Page] [Thread Index]

May 28 2003

Re: requiring payment (was spam), Einar Stefferud
Re: requiring payment (was spam), John C Klensin
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dave Crocker
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Richard Shockey
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Steven M. Bellovin
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Eliot Lear

May 28 2003

Re: requiring payment (was spam), David Morris
Re: requiring payment (was spam), David Morris
Re: requiring payment (was spam), S Woodside
RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Tony Hain
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dave Crocker
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: A peer-to-peer trust system model (was: Re: spam), Einar Stefferud
RE: spam, Paul Hoffman / IMC
RE: spam, Tony Hain
Re: requiring payment (was spam), Einar Stefferud
Re: spam, Rick Wesson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, John Stracke
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, David Morris
A peer-to-peer trust system model (was: Re: spam), Peter Deutsch
Re: requiring payment (was spam), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam - The IETF list is spam!, Anthony Atkielski
RE: spam, David Morris
RE: spam, Tony Hain
Re: spam, Terry Gray
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, David Morris
Re: spam, David Morris
Re: spam, Lloyd Wood
RE: spam, Christian Huitema
Re: requiring payment (was spam), David Morris
Re: spam, Keith Moore
RE: spam, Tony Hain
Re: spam, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: spam - The IETF list is spam!, Andrew Newton
Re: spam, John Stracke
Re: requiring payment (was spam), Rebecca L. Page
Re: spam, John Stracke
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
What the IETF should do: Amend RFC 2822 (was: Re: spam), Doug Sauder
RE: spam, Sabharwal, Atul
Re: spam - The IETF list is spam!, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam - The IETF list is spam!, Tim Chown
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
RE: spam, shogunx
Re: spam, shogunx
Re: requiring payment (was spam), S Woodside
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Jim Bauer
RE: A modest proposal (was: Re: spam), Michel Py
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
A modest proposal (was: Re: spam), Peter Deutsch
Re: spam, shogunx
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, David Morris
Re: spam, Peter Deutsch
The utility of IP, port blocking, Dan Kolis
What the IETF should do: Amend RFC 2822 (was: Re: spam), Doug Sauder
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, John C Klensin
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Vernon Schryver
RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Tony Hain
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, shogunx
RE: spam, Bob Hinden
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dean Anderson
RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Tony Hain
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Keith Moore
Re: spam, Eric Rescorla
Re: spam, Vernon Schryver
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
RE: spam, John C Klensin

May 27 2003

Re: spam, David Morris
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, John C Klensin
contact, noc
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Michel Py
Re: spam, Peter Deutsch
RE: spam, Tony Hain
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Anthony Atkielski
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, John C Klensin
Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, shogunx
RE: spam, Michel Py
RE: spam, Fam. van den Berg
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Scott Francis
The utilitiy of IP is at stake here, Tony Hain
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
RE: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Michel Py
SMS, New media, old media, Dan Kolis
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Bryan Linder
Re: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Peter Deutsch
Re: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Anthony Atkielski
RE: spam, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\)
Re: spam, Russ Allbery
Re: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, grenville armitage
RE: spam, Christian Huitema
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, John Stracke
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Lloyd Wood
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: spam, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: Re: spam (fwd), Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
please move the spam discussion elsewhere, Keith Moore
Re: spam, Zefram
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: Simple Internet Protocol, Again, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Dean Anderson
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dave Aronson
major ISP spam count, Dave Aronson
tarpit, Dave Aronson
Re: spam, Russ Allbery
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, vinton g. cerf
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Peter Deutsch
spam and the IETF, Andrew Newton
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Bob Natale
IETF-related attendees at FTC spam forum, Dave Aronson
Spam and Variant threads, Spencer Dawkins
RE: spam, Lloyd Wood
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
RE: spam, Christian de Larrinaga
Re: spam, Andrew Shore
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Glenn Chisholm
Re: spam and Fax, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Dominic Pinto
RE: spam and Fax, Avi Lior
RE: spam, Avi Lior
RE: spam, Avi Lior
RE: spam, Rod . Walsh
RE: spam, Avi Lior
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: spam, John Loughney
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Peter Deutsch
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, shogunx
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Donald Eastlake 3rd
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Peter Deutsch
Re: Simple Internet Protocol, Again, Masataka Ohta
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
RE: Simple Internet Protocol, Again, Soohong Daniel Park
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, shogunx
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam, Dominic Pinto
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Dave Crocker
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Ole J. Jacobsen
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Lloyd Wood

May 26 2003

Re[3]: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Dean Anderson
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: spam, Bill Sommerfeld
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
RE: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Theodore Ts'o
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re[2]: spam, Richard Shockey
Re[3]: spam, Richard Welty
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re[2]: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Richard Shockey
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Rick Wesson
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Bill Sommerfeld
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Andrew Shore
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Tim Chown
Re[2]: spam, Richard Welty
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Randy Bush
Re: spam, Eric Rescorla
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
Re: spam, Markku Savela
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Bob Braden
Re: spam, Bill Manning
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Bill Manning
Re: spam, shogunx
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam (fwd) (edit error on previous), Dean Anderson
Re: spam, Dean Anderson
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Vernon Schryver
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Eric A. Hall
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: spam, Peter Deutsch
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Valdis . Kletnieks
Simple Internet Protocol, Again, Masataka Ohta
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, shogunx
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Andrew G. Malis
Re: Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Bill Sommerfeld
Re: spam, Lloyd Wood
RE: spam, Christian de Larrinaga
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Joint legal/technical anti-spam effort, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: spam, S Woodside
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Michael Thomas

May 25 2003

Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Peter Deutsch
RE: spam, Richard Shockey
Re: spam, Rick Wesson
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Dave Crocker
RE: spam, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\)
Re: spam, Richard Shockey
RE: spam, Michel Py
Re: spam, Bill Cunningham
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: spam, Richard Shockey
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Zefram
RE: spam, Michel Py
Congratulations, anthony
RE: spam, Donald Eastlake 3rd
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Lloyd Wood
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Stephen Sprunk
RE: spam, Peter Ford
Re: spam, Lloyd Wood
Re: spam, Eric A. Hall
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Tim Chown
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Lloyd Wood
Re: spam, Anthony Atkielski
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Tim Chown
Re: spam, Paul Vixie
spam, Bill Cunningham

May 24 2003

Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Lloyd Wood
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Dave Crocker
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Lloyd Wood
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Dave Crocker
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Dave Crocker
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Randy Bush
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Donald Eastlake 3rd
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Donald Eastlake 3rd

May 23 2003

Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, grenville armitage
Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard, Keith Moore

May 22 2003

mail loop warning to list admins, Randy Bush
W32.Klez.E removal tools, anthony

May 18 2003

Re: spammers harvesting RFC contact addresses, Ari Ollikainen
spammers harvesting RFC contact addresses, James Salsman

May 16 2003

From Unicode Consortium: Proposed Update of UTR #18: Unicode Regular Expressions, Patrik Fältström

May 13 2003

Re: Time Taken to Announce Draft?, Margaret Wasserman
Time Taken to Announce Draft?, Tulip Rasputin

May 08 2003

NON-WG LAST CALL on the IESG charter?????? (fwd), Harald Tveit Alvestrand

May 07 2003

Re: Minutes from IESG meetings, Harald Tveit Alvestrand

May 06 2003

Minutes from IESG meetings, C. M. Heard
Re: Submitting an IETF draft in a specific WG, Donald Eastlake 3rd
Re: Submitting an IETF draft in a specific WG, John Stracke
RE: Submitting an IETF draft in a specific WG, Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)
Submitting an IETF draft in a specific WG, Tulip Rasputin
A very nice game, internet-drafts

May 05 2003

Re: Barry Leiner, shogunx
Re: The end of the world as we know it (was IPv6 address space shortages), Iljitsch van Beijnum
RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Bound, Jim
The end of the world as we know it (was IPv6 address space shortages), Pedro Roque Marques
Re: Barry Leiner, vinton g. cerf

May 02 2003

RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, John C Klensin
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Matt Crawford
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Re: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Keith Moore
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Tony Hain
Re: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Keith Moore
RE: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Tony Hain
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Barry Leiner, Bob Hinden
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: My point about the ambiguity of the question, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, John C Klensin
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, james woodyatt
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, james woodyatt
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Theodore Ts'o

May 01 2003

My point about the ambiguity of the question, Tony Hain
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Peter Deutsch
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Stephen Sprunk
Re: site-local != NAT, Stephen Sprunk
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re[2]: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Richard Welty
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, John C Klensin
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Theodore Ts'o
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, james woodyatt
Re: site-local != NAT, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, J. Noel Chiappa
Re: site-local != NAT, Charlie Perkins
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Spencer Dawkins
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
The IETF_Censored mailing list, Super-User
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Peter Deutsch
RE: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Hesham Soliman

Apr 30 2003

Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Stephen Sprunk
Re: site-local != NAT, S Woodside
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Theodore Ts'o
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Stephen Sprunk
RE: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Tony Hain
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Michael Thomas
Re: what the "scope" disagreement is about, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
what the "scope" disagreement is about, Ofer Inbar
RE: site-local != NAT, Margaret Wasserman
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Michael Thomas
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Keith Moore
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Daniel Senie
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Keith Moore
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Michael Thomas
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Stephen Sprunk
Re: site-local != NAT, John C Klensin
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Michael Thomas
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Randy Bush
Re: site-local != NAT, Randy Bush
Re: site-local != NAT, Michael Thomas
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Michael Thomas
Re: A simple question, Michael Thomas
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), John Kristoff
Re: site-local != NAT, Randy Bush
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
Re: site-local != NAT, Michael Thomas
Re: site-local != NAT, Keith Moore
RE: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), Tony Hain
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), J. Noel Chiappa
Re: A simple question, Mark . Andrews
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), Stephen Sprunk
RE: site-local != NAT, Tony Hain
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Stephen Sprunk
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), S Woodside
Re: policy domains, Eliot Lear
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Stephen Sprunk

Apr 29 2003

Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Stephen Sprunk
Re: policy domains, Stephen Sprunk
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Peter Deutsch
site-local != NAT, Ofer Inbar
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), John Kristoff
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day, John Stracke
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day, Joe Abley
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day, Peter Deutsch
Re: A simple question, Matt Crawford
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), John C Klensin
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day, John Stracke
Re: [MailServer Notification]To recipient: Message matched eManager setting and action was taken., Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), Dean Anderson
A Good Schism Brightens Anyone's Day (was: A Simple Question), Peter Deutsch
Re: A simple question, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Dean Anderson
Re: TCPng/ multiple addresses per node, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, John Stracke
IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question), John C Klensin
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Daniel Senie
Re: A simple question, Matt Crawford
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, John Stracke
Re: Internet Draft Guidelines Require Precise Formatting?, MC
Re: A simple question, Margaret Wasserman
Re: A follow up question, james woodyatt
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Paul Vixie
Re: A follow up question, james woodyatt
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, John C Klensin
Re: My thoughts on local-use addresses, Arien Vijn
Re: A simple question, Margaret Wasserman
Re: TCPng/ multiple addresses per node (was Re: A follow up question)_, Brian E Carpenter
Re: A simple question, Margaret Wasserman
Re: A simple question, Bill Manning
Re: A follow up question, Valdis . Kletnieks
Re: A simple question, David Conrad

Mail converted by MHonArc