[498] in Kerberos_Protocol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

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,
        ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov
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"
Message-ID: <ldvog38d38m.fsf@saint-elmos-fire.mit.edu>

>>>>> "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
kerberos@mit.edu 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
these years.

---Tom

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post