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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 29 January 2017 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA31A129574 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:39:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=opendkim.org header.b=mC3AmPo8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.com header.b=Oke3Lg8M
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pttw2ueP5IEm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13B81293F9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0THdJ2N017915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:39:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1485711566; x=1485797966; bh=POf2rjJOoIaVR6dUxzcDC9lExC+u3N+NKfMhsjEpAuc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=mC3AmPo848bE/Mc4S6Yvfn5Vc8xK211TwVNY1heKZjPyj+IPOC+1upg+5zPy7//9s wKhe+vbIe8b6RsHm/CJJQwahxC3P+LkF1VmsrHBVURpOEGZNmIU/y9vGzGeEF7rw+M ejhQvlTSy6SD3FgByViWmlYV3EMVkoXrXUiCrmCY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1485711566; x=1485797966; i=@elandsys.com; bh=POf2rjJOoIaVR6dUxzcDC9lExC+u3N+NKfMhsjEpAuc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Oke3Lg8MjopqBEa17XdCze+/JaJA+7CKDQZG00+61SbzwClr1QY+G1v5KxpB5bdwv Bxa1OLtBJkf957OWMZoKqTVl2tR6m1cKtw2pIQP/pqax5Bp4R2EKM0L4eZP4Ubvo3G xxSYdL08Q372kSqQ1NEdktlmosJDAKiCXJDuFSTA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20170129084516.0b8652e8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:33:34 -0800
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <5915124b-4f5e-6746-ec0a-23254e1bd3f5@rozanak.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170127194324.GB38766@mx2.yitter.info> <5915124b-4f5e-6746-ec0a-23254e1bd3f5@rozanak.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q3kSUASvLmZ13BwuC_bf8RVAvAM>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:28 -0000

Hi Hosnieh,

The current thread is interesting.  It reminds me of "the greater good".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy