IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: China blocking Wired?

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 15 January 2010 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDC73A6A2F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QqulBPimZvHD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20A13A6A2A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.131] (c-98-234-104-156.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.104.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0F51tEf099771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:01:59 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4B4FF6B6.2050007@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:01:42 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, "ietf@ietf.org >> The IETF" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: China blocking Wired?
References: <84FFE93B-5F31-4863-B826-A1CC37AF7705@softarmor.com> <p06240816c7710db8caa5@[10.20.30.158]> <B7361919-EB29-441F-B8EF-BBF8DD7A4C4C@softarmor.com> <D0B69E05AB803F434D668832@PST.JCK.COM> <0104A8BE-3C29-4DF7-8EA8-E3F5D32C7CF2@softarmor.com> <4B4B88F8.2040903@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B4B88F8.2040903@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:02:11 -0000

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Historically, inconsistencies from one US airport to another have been
> pretty common.  It's really great fun to have a staffer at one airport
> firmly instruct me on how to avoid future problems at security, with
> what I carry and how I pack it, given conflicting, firm instruction that
> I'll get a few months later at another airport.
> 
> Here's an example, from my personal repertoire:  How many batteries is
> acceptable for you to carry?  Is it the same at every airport?  How can
> yo find out the answer?

that's one of those questions you ask the DOT.

http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=24e4ffc638ef6110VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel=8fd9f08df5f3f010VgnVCM1000008355a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print

or for that matter tsa...

http://safetravel.dot.gov/whats_new_batteries.html

it's not a secret it's not part of some wierd anti terrorist measure
which is inconsistently enforced for the purposes of obfuscation, it's
just an FAA rule.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email