This is truly awful and off topic for network engineering. Please stop and try to listen to the people who are offering you feedback. On other lists. Not here.
Thanks! T On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 21:05 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <[email protected] wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over > TLS on Port 26 > <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185> > last > month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine. > > Today I have something to show you. > > Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I > solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again... > > Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me > for saying "I solved the spam problem" > > They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of > FUSSP?" > > These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They > don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, > everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing. > > I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your > side morons. So how about you all knock it off? > > Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. > Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me. > > Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this > man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are > gonna figure it out today] > > ---------------------------------- > > @Töma Gavrichenkov > > In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going >> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment. > > > How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these > "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure > that there is no "False Positives"? > > ---------------------------------- > > @Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't >> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts > > > Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit > statement into a fact. > > You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can > be proved TRUE. > > Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work > to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna > judge them. > > You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna > judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less > number of researcher lives? > > I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then > you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that. > > I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. > Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the > captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better > than me? That too, with only 50 words? > > My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are > enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all > saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the > first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels. > > If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to > thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by > saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people > who are REALLY doing the half-assed job. > > ---------------------------------- > > John Levine vs. me > > One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John > Levine > <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213> > where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message > was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then > I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his > "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. > This is what happened in Season 1. > > > 1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved > the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. > Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my > solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing > lists I knew at that time. > 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading > only the first 50 words. > 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. > He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is > what > he replied for that <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one > of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even > stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even > went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept > on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he > slept peacefully on that day. > 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone > crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version > of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. > 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew > no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. > 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. > So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether > I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it > a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my > presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" > [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the > DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I > thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his > mistake] > 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had > money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he > come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] > 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC > mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons > who thinks they are all right?] > 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again > attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. > And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. > 10. You all know the rest. > > > ---------------------------------- > > One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as > criticism. > > You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when > they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format. > > "I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are > the reasons (#3)" > > #1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. > #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. > #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism. > > However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. > Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just > because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS. > > If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread > to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I > already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to > do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking > years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like > my work. > > ---------------------------------- > > @Valdis Kletnieks > > You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's >> no MX. > > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw > > ---------------------------------- > @John Levine > > I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from > DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me > <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down > the proposal. You were watching that. > > If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best > problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the > DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to > everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim > from the beginning right?] > > ---------------------------------- > > @Everyone > > Here is what you all should know. > > It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started > my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's > now called "Dombox" > > My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: > 466,965 ++ 254,169 --] > > Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They > have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, > Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill > Coughran <https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior > investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started > as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions > over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of > Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level > of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some > investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But > he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he > can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the > inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went > through my entire paper and then sent me this mail > <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down > because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is > right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about > whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the > solution] > > Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white > paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail > <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>. > > These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 > pages white paper. > > To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm > the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when > to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When > you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates > Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% > of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only > to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the > content, you still can't judge my work. > > Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I > can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So > how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a > solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem > rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single > white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them] > > Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, > please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time. > > [I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll > respond to your queries after that] > > Thanks > > ---------------------------------- > > Materials: > > System Overview - > https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432cd > > White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf > > Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf > > Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the > video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little > outdated] > > -- > Best Regards, > > Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan > Dombox, Inc. >
