Since I have no idea whether this is an email harvester or a "legitimate" antispam tool (the form gave no indication, and no links to more information about its owner), I don't have enough information to decide reliably to respond to the message.
This posted here in the hope that someone will recognize the username and tell him/her/it that not getting mail doesn't mean nobody tried to send any..... and for the usual entertaining/sarcastic/depressing comments about the side-effect costs of antispam tools, of course.
Harald
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: 18. februar 2004 14:27 -0600 From: inanbe@xxxxxxxxx To: harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Re: Continuing the story - another stab at an IETF mission
Our anti-spam system is returning your email below.
Please RE-SEND your email by clicking the link to our web page Contact Form as follows:
http://accuspam.com?kM,vbrJT
After using our Contact Form once, you will be able to send us email directly. To permanently enable you to email us without ever using our Contact Form again, simply ask us to add you to our permanent Approved Senders list.
If you do not use our Contact Form to re-send your email below, then we can NOT read it.
Note that web page Contact Forms are commonly used by professional web sites for new contacts.
Apologies for inconvenience, as this is absolutely necessary to eliminate huge volumes of incoming spam and increase the efficiency and accuracy with which we can process email from you.
______________________________ Powered by http://AccuSpam.com. Signup instantly for FREE!
You may copy and paste your email below into our Contact Form above. And you may use our Contact Form to ask us to add you to our Approved Senders list.
Your Returned Message:
--On 18. februar 2004 18:06 +0000 Tom Petch <nwnetworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates IPv6) ie the Internet ceased at a firewall or other such IP level gateway.
I certainly agree on the "ambiguous", but not with the "delightful" :-)
Reading your definition, I cannot tell where you stand; are firewalls and networks behind them included in IETF mission or not?
Here, I feel that I stand firmly on the quicksand left by those who have gone before... if you read Dave Crocker's 1995 RFC 'To be "on" the Internet' (RFC 1775), you will see that the problem is not a new one.
Luckily for us, "mediated access" and "messaging access" are mostly things of the past - but in my opinion, the Internet extends to the applications run by the people who have "client access" to the Internet.
After all, the Internet model is an end-to-end service; if the Internet stopped at the gateway/NAT box/firewall, it would be an end-to-firewall service for >90% of today's Internet traffic - and that doesn't make sense to me.
So in my opinion, firewalls and the networks behind them are part of the Internet, because we have to design for the Internet that is there, even as we labor to make it more like the Internet we want to have. (now, is that sufficient straddling of the NAT debate? :-)
Harald
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------