This isn't really a serious resolution.
It smacks exactly of the Army's response to the red cross over abuse at
Abu Graib. For months, the Army has said it responded promptly to the Red
Cross' written complaints. Today, in the NY Times, it was revealed what
the response was: Tell us when you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
--
Paul Vixie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 01:35 18/05/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
Thank you :-)
jfc
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL
Sigh.
Harald, Please add __Another__ complaint to the chair about inappropriate
behavior by Mr. Vixie.
Oh wait, could it be that lying to the general public saying our address
space is hijacked is a personal attack? Hmm. Maybe they aren't as
'perfessional' as they made out to be. Maybe these
Mr. Anderson,
I note that your use of the terms infantile, irresponsible and
immature are personal attacks. These are inappropriate for the IETF list.
If you have serious complaints to make that you feel require you to use
these terms, send them to me privately.
If you want to send mail to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-11, at 23.55, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour
in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
This block is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I thought I needed to pay to get to most ITU standards. But I might be
wrong.
I can't see how personal closed discussions relate to open
standardization. Are you saying that you want to have an open process,
as long as you have a direct channel
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I thought I needed to pay to get to most ITU standards. But I might be
wrong.
What does that have to do with anything??? The IETF obtains funds, too.
Nothing is free.
I can't see how
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-11, at 23.55, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour
in this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the
)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rick Wesson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
Where would you suggest I take it?
It says in the IETF mission statement:
The IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following
cardinal
Of course, this is exactly why the third world doesn't want to have the
IETF in charge in its present form.
Professional and standards organizations aren't private clubs.
--Dean
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
This pretty much does it for me: anyone who says
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
On Mon, 10 May 2004, John Stracke wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an
email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc
How is it defamation if the only one that gets
This pretty much does it for me: anyone who says they are entitled
to participate in the IETF immediately goes into my spam bucket.
As others have pointed out, you've done yourself more harm than good.
I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG
chairs as a
PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 10 mei 2004 22:10
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
Point of order, please
but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET
(ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints
about ISC.ORG.
--Dean
Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no
way to prove exists. Unless or until
assignment of IP space does not impune any other
service. Asserting otherwise is foolish. Pressing
the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be
willful ignorance. Please enjoy your blissful state.
--bill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean
DNSOP list members -
A friendly reminder about the list setup:
DNSOP, the Domain Name System Operations WG list.
Questions about the administration of this list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posts intended for the entire list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you plan to
if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council
to persue remedies.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:32:27PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service. Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
Where would you suggest I take it?
It says in the IETF mission statement:
The IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following
cardinal principles:
Open process - that any interested participant can in fact
participate in the work, know what is being decided, and
On 10 May 2004, at 16:10, Dean Anderson wrote:
As Joe Abley revealed previously, this configuration from ISC.ORG isn't
meant to actually block spam.
What?
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 11 May 2004, at 14:26, Dean Anderson wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has
thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and
that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill
Manning, and Rob Austein as WG
On 11 May 2004, at 14:02, Dean Anderson wrote:
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address
to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering
On 11 May 2004, at 17:55, Dean Anderson wrote:
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement
in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
For a more complete list of resources hosted at ISC, you might try:
http://www.isc.org/ops/hosting
On Tue, 11
--Barr Hibbs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Monday, 10 May 2004 13:24
To: John Stracke
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
On Mon, 10
--On 11. mai 2004 17:10 -0400 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS.
Perhaps we
Dean,
third time same complaint, third time same answer.
No.
A WG chair is expected to read mail coming from the working group list.
What he does with copies that go directly to him is his own business.
And as I have told you on the previous two instances of this complaint:
Personal mail to
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Dean,
third time same complaint, third time same answer.
No.
A WG chair is expected to read mail coming from the working group list.
What he does with copies that go directly to him is his own business.
I disagree. A WG chair has to
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
--Dean
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: bill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So? Rob's not refusing to accept *any* email *at all* from you as a person
(just from a range of addresses which are generating email he doesn't like);
and you're more than savvy enough technically to get email to him via some
other path.
As an IETF
Dean Anderson wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has
thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and
that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill
Manning, and Rob Austein as WG Co-chair in his role for IETF
Dean,
ok, i asked nicely and privately several times.
PLEASE! take this thread some place else.
-rick
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So? Rob's not refusing to accept *any* email *at all* from you as a person
(just from a range of
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service. Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
IP address space to abusers doesn't impune the rest of your services. This
was the claim made by Media3 in Media3 v. MAPS. Media3 lost.
But assignment of IP
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you look at the message, you will note that it is a bounce from the
WG co-chair's _personal_ email address, directly to your email address.
it was a bounce to a message Mr. Austein posted on DNSOP.
I assume you mean it was a bounce to
On May 10, 2004, at 14:17, Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc by returning business email to users of Av8
Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address space.
That may or may not be, but since you
Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc
How is it defamation if the only one that gets the message is Av8?
--
/===\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Ken Raeburn wrote:
On May 10, 2004, at 14:17, Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc by returning business email to users of Av8
Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address
On Mon, 10 May 2004, John Stracke wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc
How is it defamation if the only one that gets the message is Av8?
Av8 customers get it. DNSOP and IETF list members have gotten
38 matches
Mail list logo
