On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2016 8:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: =20
>> There is another option: the people who live in a p=3Dreject policy =
> regime
>> could use a different email address for IETF participation. It's not
>> =
> a
>> choice I like very much though.
> Been there, done that. It has quite a few nasty side effects. You
> easily = end up also sending work related e-mail from a non-corporate
> account, = for example when you forward an email from a WG list to a
> colleague at = work. That's against many companies' internal
Yes, and yet, the legal council doesn't get involved in the p=reject
policy decision? The point here is to make the legal people wake up to
what is going on.
Creating corp.example.com or eng.example.com with a p=quarantine or other
policy is not such huge decision for a place considering p=reject.
That assumes that having that hole isn't a problem. Our experience has been that if you leave something open, the attacks will follow.
Corporate employees are often targets of attacks.
Brandon