Someone want to forward this to Mr. Allen Smith?

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON
Delivery-Date: Sun Feb 10 18:28:19 2002
Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON>
Received: from localhost (localhost)
	by nic-naa.net (8.11.6/8.11.1) id g1B2SIr08500;
	Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:28:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from MAILER-DAEMON)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:28:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Message-Id: <200202110228.g1B2SIr08500@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
	boundary="g1B2SIr08500.1013394498/nic-naa.net"
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

- --g1B2SIr08500.1013394498/nic-naa.net

The original message was received at Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)
from localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    (reason: 550 5.0.0 <easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... Mail from rr.com rejected due to open relays (refusal to allow tests))

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to dogberry.rutgers.edu.:
>>> RCPT To:<easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<<< 550 5.0.0 <easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... Mail from rr.com rejected due to open relays (refusal to allow tests)
550 5.1.1 <easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User unknown

- --g1B2SIr08500.1013394498/nic-naa.net
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; nic-naa.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost.nic-naa.net
Arrival-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; dogberry.rutgers.edu
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.0.0 <easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... Mail from rr.com rejected due to open relays (refusal to allow tests)
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:28:09 -0800 (PST)

- --g1B2SIr08500.1013394498/nic-naa.net
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1])
	by nic-naa.net (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1B2Ror08499;
	Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Message-Id: <200202110227.g1B2Ror08499@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Allen Smith" <easmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: ietf-whois@xxxxxxx, bruce_campbell@xxxxxxxx, brunner
Subject: Re: draft-campbell-whois-00.txt 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:42:43 EST."
             <10202101642.ZM58245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:27:50 -0800
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0

Allen,

In responding to your note I've deleted the following lists:

	uwho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - not an ietf activity, see nsi and/or
		vgrs about their activity or activities,
	rfci-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx - not a "whois" list, of any stripe,
	anti-spam-wg@xxxxxxxx - ditto.

I didn't add the !43 list. I think it is a legitimate ietf list, and several
people are on both the :43 and the !43 lists, and that list's animators can
forward your note should they choose.

The re-purpurposing you propose (or others have earlier imputed and you have
chosen to accept uncritically) to rfc954 (NICNAME/WHOIS) service, one of UCE
reduction, fails at least two tests:

	o this purpose could not have been stated prior to the initiation
	  of the CIX agreements,
and
	o this purpose is inconsistent with other normative texts, viz,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/wpdocs/wp33en.htm

Cheers,
Eric

- --g1B2SIr08500.1013394498/nic-naa.net--


------- End of Forwarded Message