Subject: RE: (ngtrans) RE: IPv6 @ interim meeting

From: "Strahm, Bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:20:48 -0700

So you are suggesting that the IETF goes to a closed model where people have
to be "approved" to join mailing list discussions ???

I DO NOT believe this is the IETF way and I hope nothing is done, if you
don't like this persons posts, feel free to create a procmail et.al. rule to
automatically delete his messages, but DO NOT do that for me.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 11:03 AM
To: JIM FLEMING
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) RE: IPv6 @ interim meeting

On Wed, 30 May 2001, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> Anyone with access to the IPv4 Internet
> has an IPv8-compatible prefix for FREE.
>
> 2002:<IPv4 Address>:0000:<IPv8 Address>

Would someone please ban Jim Fleming from the lists?  I've yet to see a
message from him that isn't pure and complete _crap_ or a troll.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:35:36 +0300 (EEST)

> automatically delete his messages, but DO NOT do that for me.

No; what I'm suggesting is that posting by this one person who seems to
get odd pleasure from trolling the lists and spewing crap can be
disapproved.  Approval by default unless _clearly_ shown otherwise is of
course a MUST.

I'm not the only one disturbed about this, but I can live with this if
need be; this would save all the other people the bother.