in Kerberos_Protocol
Re: deletion of people from krb-protocol (mailing list merge)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Yu)
Fri Aug 4 19:19:54 2000
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Jerome H Saltzer in Idaho <Saltzer@MIT.EDU>, krb-protocol@MIT.EDU,
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: 04 Aug 2000 19:18:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: Ken Raeburn's message of "03 Aug 2000 14:33:19 -0400"
>>>>> "raeburn" == Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU> writes:
raeburn> Basically, redundancy. We've got two different lists used
raeburn> for mostly overlapping purposes. (Not entirely -- krb4
raeburn> protocol questions might not be welcome on ietf-krb-wg, and
raeburn> WG procedural matters wouldn't be of much interest to
raeburn> krb-protocol.) One rather quiet at MIT, and the IETF list
raeburn> newly set up and getting traffic.
At this point, krb4 protocol questions might best be served on the
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list, as it is likely to constitute a minimal
part of the traffic there.
Also, krb-protocol is the contact point for some of the current
internet drafts concerning Kerberos. krb-protocol is quite a stale
list. It seems that a number of current subscribers to it have
bouncing addresses, which I should get rid of at some point.
There is precedent for moving an IETF WG list formerly hosted at MIT
to an off-campus location and making the MIT list point to the new
list. The cat-ietf list did this at some point.
raeburn> Tom and I already get more than enough bounces off the
raeburn> Kerberos list, as do the senders.
This is also true... the MIT mailhubs have this bad habit of not
rewriting the envelope-from address to something reasonable, after all