Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], should the IETF respond?

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 27 January 2017 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1F61299AA for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.989
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=4OlQuFbv; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=r8M/5LEQ
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nl0xpdQAetH2 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559F01299A8 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0RLpKFS002499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1485553885; x=1485640285; bh=+e5XTy9UxNws7JABjvmFfZrDqfhN+NlxxnKZOBWu82E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=4OlQuFbvcXAGqBdvxs6HcSHNm6O+ZDxnEE9di9FkEQbI+ryLm8CyTyr8CSfMakKFX vo3MJEvK1yBtyoTxNhUjpuzKRZtKJtZcGsK0A0VTj2mR9YpVxTOagApdIZ1p0ONDtu jQDPsybsSXhnqnRsod9Ys8XPjCdk+tLYz3epuA7g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1485553885; x=1485640285;; bh=+e5XTy9UxNws7JABjvmFfZrDqfhN+NlxxnKZOBWu82E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=r8M/5LEQc/Dsenrd+IZs7PFaY8vUU6VK8HusFS7YFSCAM/VMhTLP4VQDbmox3n7ED d5uKmIZaynhoLRhVkRmQJkIH+jAcuaAecpPSNXN7IjomVqxrb3HUhs8LgPpoJ1U0FG kucfkNDKkAttyXAKkf9+K+VAsbtvDpfzUsIUCZhg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:09 -0800
To: Dave Burstein <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.g>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:51:28 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 11:29 27-01-2017, Dave Burstein wrote:
>Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to 
>a major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.

There is a thread at 
which is related to the above.  The appropriate venue to discuss 
about the topic is

S. Moonesamy