IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [¯f¬rĵ§i](no subject)

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Mon, 09 August 2004 23:16 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01885; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BuJRz-00050c-1z; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:21:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BuJG4-00080v-Fx; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:08:48 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BuJAj-0003kU-8G for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:03:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00806 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107] ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BuJF8-0004lM-I8 for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:07:51 -0400
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:valdis@turing-police.cc.vt.edu [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.13.1.Alpha0/8.13.1.Alpha0) with ESMTP id i79N3Fij002494 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:03:15 -0400
Message-Id: <200408092303.i79N3Fij002494@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.1 07/26/2004 with nmh-1.1-RC3
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:40:30 +0800." <200408092240.i79MeUgk015879@graphic.es.ncku.edu.tw>
References: <iuhhfseupvzfiwpldxr@ietf.org> <200408092240.i79MeUgk015879@graphic.es.ncku.edu.tw>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:03:15 -0400
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Subject: Re: [¯f¬rĵ§i](no subject)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1165751484=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:40:30 +0800, clamav@graphic.es.ncku.edu.tw said:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warning: Message delivery wasn't performed.
> 
> Reason: Our virus scanner detected very suspicious code in
> the attachment of a mail addressed to a user of our system.
> 
> The following message will not be delivered:
> 
> From: sob@harvard.edu
> To: ietf@ietf.org

> This mail was automatically generated by TrashScan v0.12

So just how many RFC *MUST* or *MUST NOT* had to be violated in order for this
silly message to end up back on the list? (It may be possible to substitute
some number of SHOULD for MUST items, but it still ends up reading "Bad Network
Citizen"...)

Kind of makes you wonder why we bother at all...


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email