Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels

"George, Wes" <> Mon, 09 March 2015 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074441A887B for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.225
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P0ZgdS9qPK8l for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83471A885D for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,367,1422939600"; d="scan'208";a="270129587"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 09 Mar 2015 08:57:19 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:03:47 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Robert Sparks <>, "" <>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:03:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
Thread-Topic: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
Thread-Index: AdBaaXp4qwWb6wNSTz2V3kK1fBOZyg==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:04:12 -0000

On 3/6/15, 4:47 PM, "Robert Sparks" <>; wrote:

>We are also continuing to work on improving the issues that started the
>threads sharing the Subject of this message at a high priority.

My other reply (albeit hidden under my signature which I stupidly forgot
to remove from the top of the message) quotes a part of a previous message
implying that this was already fixed, but I am still receiving messages
sent to e.g. that
are forwarding to without adding that address to the To:
field. Is this still in the process of being fixed, or do you want
examples of this because it's supposed to be fixed? It is unclear from
your previous message.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.