The world of networking is in itself decentralized. In the event a certain network starts behaving badly, other networks will take appropriate action by themselves if they see it as a problem.
I see no need to become a nanny state over issues like this. If someone is being belligerent and harming people, that's a different story. But criticism is criticism, and a sharp tongue isn't reason enough to try to censor viewpoints. Individuals who see it as a problem are more than free to take action to protect themselves (read: stop listening to them). On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:40:20PM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote: > > Negative feedback, respectfully and objectively delivered, should be > > embraced as opportunities to improve ourselves, our products and our > > services, not shunned and silenced because it points out a flaw. > > 1. This. A hundred times this. > > 2. This is why we have RFC 2142 (which specifies role addresses > such as postmaster@, abuse@, and so on): so that we can easily and > quickly tell each other when we're screwing up so that it can be fixed. > This is why all professional and responsible operations maintain those > addresses, pay attention to what shows up there, read it, analyze it, > act on it, and respond to it. This is and has been an instrinic part > of our operational culture for decades -- even though we all know > that just about every message ever received via them will be negative. > (Because nobody's going to drop a line to hostmaster@ noting that our > DNS servers are all working perfectly.) > > A critical presentation is really no different than an email message > to webmaster@ that points out a 404'd URL. It's an opportunity to > fix something and to do better. > > ---rsk > -- Regards, Paras President ProTraf Solutions, LLC Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
