|
rfc793 is a real classic. gotta respect that. had to study rfc5764 for work the other day. it's thick, solid, tight. then there's poo poo like rfc1149. that's some real engineer humour right there!!1
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:08 |
|
|
# ? May 4, 2024 01:23 |
|
RFC 219: Mods MUST gas this thread, and MUST ban user
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:10 |
|
nice try but i got concensus from the pos working group and we're good.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:14 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc196
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:14 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc420 op
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:14 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc706
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:16 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1488
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 00:31 |
|
RFC 2827 by far. BCP38 can not be implemented fast enough. way to many non compliant devices contributing to these dns amplification and other similar attacks on core infrastructure of the net
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 01:24 |
|
lampey posted:RFC 2827 by far. BCP38 can not be implemented fast enough. way to many non compliant devices contributing to these dns amplification and other similar attacks on core infrastructure of the net code:
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 01:42 |
|
rfc1918, op
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 01:44 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 02:31 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=69 dont talk to me or my rfc ever again
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 02:35 |
|
rfc 2549
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 02:37 |
|
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=219 rfc 219: defines yospos
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 04:05 |
|
aids
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 23:54 |
|
RFC 2616 posted:This media type UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse it
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 00:43 |
|
pram posted:aids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADrfP4EHV8
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 02:58 |
|
jsr 69
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 02:59 |
the all blacks, op
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 04:55 |
|
|
# ? May 4, 2024 01:23 |
|
Skim Milk posted:the all blacks, op gimme answer tbh
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 15:31 |