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

Robert Sparks <> Mon, 09 March 2015 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EC11A8836 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hl9jA1BDhO_O for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ED9E1A8843 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t29DUmj7006712 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:30:48 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 08:30:43 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "George, Wes" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 13:30:51 -0000

On 3/9/15 8:03 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> 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?
Yes, we are still working on that.
>   It is unclear from
> your previous message.
> Thanks
> Wes
> 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.