Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 are coming, and we will hide the abuse before you get here. A personal attack is infantile, irresponsible, and immature. Calling a personal attack what it is, it not itself a personal attack. Talk about going through the looking glass. --Dean On Tue, 18 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: 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 public IETF list, be civil. You have been warned. Harald Alvestrand --On 18. mai 2004 18:36 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 attacks aren't as unrelated to the IETF as the Chair asserts. I guess those that have to resort to name-calling don't have anything else ot resort to, since they can't resort to facts. And of course, indeed, no contrary _facts_ have been given. Well, Vixie hasn't changed in 15 years, still as infantile as ever. And these irresponsible and immature people have operational control of a root nameserver. How did that ever happen? That too, should be changed. --Dean On 17 May 2004, 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
[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] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 attacks aren't as unrelated to the IETF as the Chair asserts. I guess those that have to resort to name-calling don't have anything else ot resort to, since they can't resort to facts. And of course, indeed, no contrary _facts_ have been given. Well, Vixie hasn't changed in 15 years, still as infantile as ever. And these irresponsible and immature people have operational control of a root nameserver. How did that ever happen? That too, should be changed. --Dean On 17 May 2004, 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 public IETF list, be civil. You have been warned. Harald Alvestrand --On 18. mai 2004 18:36 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 attacks aren't as unrelated to the IETF as the Chair asserts. I guess those that have to resort to name-calling don't have anything else ot resort to, since they can't resort to facts. And of course, indeed, no contrary _facts_ have been given. Well, Vixie hasn't changed in 15 years, still as infantile as ever. And these irresponsible and immature people have operational control of a root nameserver. How did that ever happen? That too, should be changed. --Dean On 17 May 2004, 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
-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 assigned to EP.NET. I work for an IXP. Are you trying to say that that means that all traffic that passes an IXP means that I am the upstream for that traffic? It doesn't work this way. - - kurtis - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQKjlvqarNKXTPFCVEQIevwCfQAG+nR7rSNpkmSGvSmtTsjTEKtMAn03c PTbWNR/gB8VkAwl/P+94/WQZ =0ViT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
-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 to the chairs in that process? I am not following you. I though the standardization for the IETF was done in public, not in private emails with the chairs. And that that was what made the IETF special. - - kurtis - On 2004-05-13, at 18.34, Dean Anderson wrote: 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 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 participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQKisgqarNKXTPFCVEQLJrQCgoc/TPKrlLx7QUTXsjkIkjZ8kVVsAn07g f8jJEq6KM4+sTZqp01ScKraY =KuSS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 to the chairs in that process? I am not following you. I though the standardization for the IETF was done in public, not in private emails with the chairs. And that that was what made the IETF special. Some IETF business needs to be conducted off-list. If the IETF is going to participate in unlawful group boycotts, then it can't really claim to have an open process. You couch your terms as though I expect to have a 'special direct channel' to the chairs. I only expect to have the _SAME_ access as everyone else, and no less. If others can send email directly to the chairs, then I should have that opportunity as well. Anything less is unequal access. As I've already pointed out, this abuse on the DNS lists isn't new, and it hasn't only targeted me. And in fact, in the past, it hasn't been limited to off-list email, but on-list email as well. I'm just the _current_ victim. --Dean - - kurtis - On 2004-05-13, at 18.34, Dean Anderson wrote: 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 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 participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQKisgqarNKXTPFCVEQLJrQCgoc/TPKrlLx7QUTXsjkIkjZ8kVVsAn07g f8jJEq6KM4+sTZqp01ScKraY =KuSS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area. This block is assigned to EP.NET. I work for an IXP. Are you trying to say that that means that all traffic that passes an IXP means that I am the upstream for that traffic? It doesn't work this way. It certainly does when you've assigned them IP addresses. But, I do find it rather funny that some (very few) people running exchange points (which are the simplest of ISPs) don't think they provide transit services. For the less technical, an exchange point is a place that provides rack space and a Local Area Network of some sort (think ethernet, but ethernet has long been replaced by faster technologies). Other people (usually ISPs, but not always) come in to an exchange point and establish BGP peering sessions with other exchange point customers. Sometimes this is over the LAN provided by the exchange point, sometimes they pull their own cable between their racks. The only thing that is different is that an exchange point doesn't need to have it's own AS number, nor does it need to run BGP. The lack of a BGP session doesn't have any impact on whether there is a relationship with the customers of the exchange point, nor on whether traffic is transited by an exchange point. When customers pull their own cable, one can't necessarilly tell that those customers connected at an exchange point. That type of connection is totally private. But LAN connections provided by the exchange point and assigned IP addresses are just regular network connections, subject to the rules and AUP of the service provider (exchange point). An exchange point is expected to behave just like other ISPs with respect to abuse and AUPs. Most exchange points do have AUPs, and most do handle abuse by their customers. --Dean ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists (fwd)
This wasn't a rhetorical question. Does the IETF plan to pay more than just lip service to having an open process? Seems to make a good argument for putting the IETF under the ITU. --Dean -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:49:51 -0400 (EDT) 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 principles: Open process - that any interested participant can in fact participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our documents, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists and our meeting minutes publicly available on the Net. How can one have an open process if WG chairs don't receive email? How can it be taken off-list if IETF staff don't receive email? Your request seems to be contradictory. --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004, Rick Wesson wrote: 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 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 WG chair, he's obligated to follow the IETF rules on public participation. He can't block anything that the IETF mail server can't block: Public Participants. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG chairs as a participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
while Rob and I have had serious disagreements about technical matters in the past, I've never known him to make disparaging remarks about anyone, and a scan of the last 30 days' messages on the DNSOP list authored by Rob (and delivered to my inbox) show NONE that mention AV8, it's products, customers, or business practices. So, what's the fuss about? Doesn't seem to involve IETF at all --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 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 it. When I have to republish something to make a complaint then legally it is just like Mr. Austein published it himself. Defamation Tort Law. --Dean . dnsop resources: _ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
Speaking as OPS AD who is currently on-line. The other OPS AD (David Kessens) is in the air and so is Harald. Please refrain from this discussion on the DNSOP mailing list. I have seen the complaint and will investigate and come with an answer. The issue was between Dean and one of Rob Austein's email addresses, so I do not see a need to discuss this on this mailing list. So I declare this subject as a topic that is NOT a DNSOP mailing list topic. Pls refrain from posting to this list on this topic. Thanks, Bert (OPS AD) -Original Message- From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL 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 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. Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives. IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc. 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. Actually, it bounces this way to all Av8 Internet Customers, not just to me. But it was a bounce to a message Mr. Austein posted on DNSOP. It was not private business. It was IETF business. Further, by reviewing the archives of DNSOP, I have found that Mr. Austein's home address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], which he has used exclusively for some time until March 1st of this year. He first started using the ISC.ORG address on a message involving draft-ietf-dnsop-inadr-required. Perhaps coincidentally, this draft is a pet project of Mr. Austeins, and one to which I (and many others) have raised serious objections regarding both misleading and incorrect content and procedural irregularities. The archives show that since March 1st, 2004, Mr. Austein has made all his DNSOP posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd say that everyone has the right to choose what mail to accept (or not to accept). They don't when they are conducting IETF business. IETF rules require that participants not be excluded from IETF activities. WG chairs and others cannot refuse email from participants. As Joe Abley revealed previously, this configuration from ISC.ORG isn't meant to actually block spam. The idea is to make Av8 Internet users have to seek other email addresses by which to contact them, and to obtain opportunities to defame Av8 Internet and perhaps others and convince users to seek other services. This is unlawful. Besides the defamation, it would is an illegal group boycott, and an unfair business practice. Refusing email is one thing, though that is still not permitted for IETF business. Defamation by claiming addresses are hijacked is quite another thing. This abuse of email addresses is unacceptable, and illegal, and I can engage legal action if necessary to prevent an organization like the IETF from permitting this abuse to continue. Mr. Austein cannot be allowed to use the ISC.ORG address for IETF business. You might or might not have a point if this behaviour happened on an IETF list, but that is not the case.. Actually, it is the case. This involves two IETF lists, and the conduct of an IETF representative on the DNSOP list. My republishing of Mr. Austein's defamation to the DNSOP and IETF list to make a complaint is a republishment for which Mr. Austein and the IETF are legally responsible under US defamation tort law. Mr Austein as a representative of the IETF defamed Av8 Internet to me, to the customers of Av8 Internet, and to the readership of both the IETF and DNSOP lists. Mr. Austein is a co-chair of the IETF working group. This defamation came about through IETF working group business. The IETF is responsible for the conduct of its representatives on its lists. It is unlawful to permit its representatives to use addresses which are configured to defame IETF participants, and it is against the IETF rules to refuse email from IETF participants. Dean Anderson President Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 you can prove that ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in this case. Defamation works many ways. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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. --Dean Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd) On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote: I have no reason to act as your relay agent. We have no agreement in place for me to act in this manner. The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship. 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 92.828 ms 91.036 ms 91.415 ms On Mon, 10 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 you can prove that ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in this case. Defamation works many ways. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 post from more than one email address, please send a list of secondary posting addresses to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subjecy line that reads: dnsop secondary posting request To unsubscribe yourself from this list send a message to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with the contents: unsubscribe dnsop end or go to the web based user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html The Mhonarc web archive can be found here: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html A list of the text archive files (month by month) can be found by sending an index request (index dnsop) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and files can be retrived using the majordomo get command: get dnsop dnsop.archive.xxx --- Note that the list is archived is several ways and in several places, so anyone can read the WG list at their pleasure. Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing CenterUniversity of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774/Cell: 912-7998 On Tue, 11 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: 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 read email from participants, including off-list email. Certain complaints and business needs to be handled off-list. And as I have told you on the previous two instances of this complaint: Personal mail to you, including bounce messages, is not someone defaming you in the IETF, even when you choose to make it public. I disagree, and I believe the IETF attorney has advised you otherwise. The previous complaints involving Paul Vixie and Joe Abley regarded their roles as participants, not as representatives of the IETF. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc . dnsop resources:_ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 address space does indicate a relationship. Your denials of that relationship are frivolous. Now, as in January, a close read of your message reveals that you didn't actually _deny_ the relationship, you tried to convince me that there was no _proof_ of any relationship. With regard to spam, we call such deniable relationships pink contracts. The spam-hoster tries to deny that anyone has any proof there is a relationship with the spammer. I'd love to be able to say you were violating you AUP, but you don't have one published. Indeed, it is rather interesting that neither EP.NET (Bill Manning), nor ISC.ORG (Paul Vixie) had published AUPs. But as Media3 V. MAPS demonstrated, we can call a spade a spade. You host abusers, we can call you abuse-friendly. I suspect this is off-topic from the subject of abuse on DNSOP lists. I would like to redirect anyone who would like to continue this offlist. I will shortly put all of your January emails and you current emails regarding EP.NET and ISC.ORG on the web under IADL.ORG (Internet Anti-Defamation League). --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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. --Dean Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd) On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote: I have no reason to act as your relay agent. We have no agreement in place for me to act in this manner. The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship. 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 92.828 ms 91.036 ms 91.415 ms On Mon, 10 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 you can prove that ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in this case. Defamation works many ways. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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 principles: Open process - that any interested participant can in fact participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our documents, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists and our meeting minutes publicly available on the Net. How can one have an open process if WG chairs don't receive email? How can it be taken off-list if IETF staff don't receive email? Your request seems to be contradictory. --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004, Rick Wesson wrote: 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 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 WG chair, he's obligated to follow the IETF rules on public participation. He can't block anything that the IETF mail server can't block: Public Participants. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG chairs as a participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 Co-chair in his role for IETF business, all claim that it is. What? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 should move on. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 fabric in the Bay Area. This block is assigned to EP.NET. Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS. Perhaps we should move on. ISC does more than just __USE__ SORBS. It hosts and promotes SORBS. Host abuse, you are abuse-friendly. /usr/sbin/traceroute 204.152.186.189 traceroute to 204.152.186.189 (204.152.186.189), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 av8-camb-gw1 (198.3.136.1) 1.548 ms 0.869 ms 1.758 ms 2 av8-qncy-gw1 (130.105.32.14) 4.338 ms 4.197 ms 4.125 ms 3 qcy1-ar2-f2-0-314.gnaps.net (199.232.42.53) 4.105 ms 3.812 ms 4.504 ms 4 qcy-m20-ge2-3-0-625.gnaps.net (199.232.44.45) 6.874 ms 4.224 ms 7.064 ms 5 ash-m20-at-0-2-0.gnaps.net (199.232.44.53) 16.136 ms 16.263 ms 16.145 ms 6 nyc-m20-ge2-1-0.gnaps.net (199.232.131.16) 24.379 ms 27.903 ms 22.061 ms 7 los1-m20-at1-3-0.gnaps.net (199.232.44.10) 99.734 ms 94.698 ms 101.074 ms 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 103.482 ms 103.255 ms 103.596 ms 9 r2-sfo2.r5.sql1.isc.org (192.5.4.248) 106.342 ms 110.758 ms 115.882 ms 10 www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) 106.122 ms 110.523 ms 105.857 ms As you can see, traffic to 204.152.186.189 transits EP.NET's 198.32.176.4 address block. --Dean ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 assigned to EP.NET. [...] As you can see, traffic to 204.152.186.189 transits EP.NET's 198.32.176.4 address block. If you are interested in learning about exchange points, peering, transit and interconnection in general, I'd can give you some pointers: you're missing some basic information which is leading you to jump to the wrong conclusions wrt 198.32.176.0/24. I do lots of community education, and I'm more than willing to help out. But let's do it in private mail rather than this list. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
I sent a response to Rob in regard to a post he made on DNSOP, and he responded that my IP addresses were hijacked. --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote: while Rob and I have had serious disagreements about technical matters in the past, I've never known him to make disparaging remarks about anyone, and a scan of the last 30 days' messages on the DNSOP list authored by Rob (and delivered to my inbox) show NONE that mention AV8, it's products, customers, or business practices. So, what's the fuss about? Doesn't seem to involve IETF at all --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 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 it. When I have to republish something to make a complaint then legally it is just like Mr. Austein published it himself. Defamation Tort Law. --Dean . dnsop resources: _ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
--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 should move on. Yes, please. The topic has lost all information value relevant to the IETF list. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 you, including bounce messages, is not someone defaming you in the IETF, even when you choose to make it public. Harald --On 10. mai 2004 14:17 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point of order, please 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. Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives. IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:23 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400 from cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (reason: 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mx-1.isc.org.: DATA 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown 554 Error: no valid recipients ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 read email from participants, including off-list email. Certain complaints and business needs to be handled off-list. And as I have told you on the previous two instances of this complaint: Personal mail to you, including bounce messages, is not someone defaming you in the IETF, even when you choose to make it public. I disagree, and I believe the IETF attorney has advised you otherwise. The previous complaints involving Paul Vixie and Joe Abley regarded their roles as participants, not as representatives of the IETF. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd) On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote: I have no reason to act as your relay agent. We have no agreement in place for me to act in this manner. The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship. 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 92.828 ms 91.036 ms 91.415 ms On Mon, 10 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 you can prove that ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in this case. Defamation works many ways. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 WG chair, he's obligated to follow the IETF rules on public participation. He can't block anything that the IETF mail server can't block: Public Participants. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG chairs as a participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. No, actually, that's very difficult for anyone to see. First off there's the simple matter that hijacked doesn't mean you hijacked it; as has already been pointed out, it could mean that someone else hijacked part of it from you. Second there's the fact that ARIN lists your netblock as being assigned to the Open Software Foundation (with yourself as the contact). It is impossible for an outsider to know whether or not the OSF transferred the block to av8.com legitimately. I don't suspect it, you understand--nor do I much care--I'm just pointing out that it's not plain whether anybody here is lying. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |Baldric, how did you manage to find a turnip that cost 400,000| |pounds? Well, I had to haggle. --Blackadder III | \===/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 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 WG chair, he's obligated to follow the IETF rules on public participation. He can't block anything that the IETF mail server can't block: Public Participants. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG chairs as a participant. 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 business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 address space does indicate a relationship. Your denials of that relationship are frivolous. Now, as in January, a close read of your message reveals that you didn't actually _deny_ the relationship, you tried to convince me that there was no _proof_ of any relationship. With regard to spam, we call such deniable relationships pink contracts. The spam-hoster tries to deny that anyone has any proof there is a relationship with the spammer. I'd love to be able to say you were violating you AUP, but you don't have one published. Indeed, it is rather interesting that neither EP.NET (Bill Manning), nor ISC.ORG (Paul Vixie) had published AUPs. But as Media3 V. MAPS demonstrated, we can call a spade a spade. You host abusers, we can call you abuse-friendly. I suspect this is off-topic from the subject of abuse on DNSOP lists. I would like to redirect anyone who would like to continue this offlist. I will shortly put all of your January emails and you current emails regarding EP.NET and ISC.ORG on the web under IADL.ORG (Internet Anti-Defamation League). --Dean On Tue, 11 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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. --Dean Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd) On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote: I have no reason to act as your relay agent. We have no agreement in place for me to act in this manner. The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship. 8 paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4) 92.828 ms 91.036 ms 91.415 ms On Mon, 10 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 you can prove that ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from making such statements. Traceroute is not your friend in this case. Defamation works many ways. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 [a reply to] a message Mr. Austein posted on DNSOP, right? (No need to confirm, just checking.) It was not private business. It was IETF business. 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. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 didn't show any bounce from uoregon, your claim of abuse of DNSOP lists in the subject line appears to be unsupported. And I'd read the error message to suggest that perhaps Av8's net block had *been* hijacked (in someone's experience, not necessarily world-wide, which would be an interesting problem for globally distributed block lists), not that Av8 necessarily had done it. Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives. IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc. Yes, I'm sure that SRA was the one who submitted Av8's netblock to SORBS, and set up ISC to use SORBS, as part of a secret plot to ruin your reputation. /sarcasm How about suggesting a more positive solution, instead of throwing around language like defamation? Maybe, IETF WG chairs should have/use addresses that don't reject mail based on unreliable block lists (for some definition of 'unreliable'), and the IETF should provide a forwarding service for those chairs who cannot otherwise get such an address. I would also suggest you try to resolve the issue with SORBS, except that when I tried the URL suggested, I got ERROR: Couldn't prepare statement: $dbh is (undef). So I guess you could question the reliability of this particular service Ken ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |I'm not a bibliophile, I'm a bibliophiliac. Put me in a| |bookstore, my wallet bleeds. | \===/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
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 space. That may or may not be, but since you didn't show any bounce from uoregon, your claim of abuse of DNSOP lists in the subject line appears to be unsupported. Bounces don't have to come from Uoregon. Mr. Austein is the WG chair. He has to abide by the IETF rules, just like Uoregon (host of DNSOP) And I'd read the error message to suggest that perhaps Av8's net block had *been* hijacked (in someone's experience, not necessarily world-wide, which would be an interesting problem for globally distributed block lists), not that Av8 necessarily had done it. This isn't the case. And if it were, Av8 would make that claim, no one else would. Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives. IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc. Yes, I'm sure that SRA was the one who submitted Av8's netblock to SORBS, and set up ISC to use SORBS, as part of a secret plot to ruin your reputation. /sarcasm This has no legal relevance. Repetition of defamation is still defamation. How about suggesting a more positive solution, instead of throwing around language like defamation? Maybe, IETF WG chairs should have/use addresses that don't reject mail based on unreliable block lists (for some definition of 'unreliable'), and the IETF should provide a forwarding service for those chairs who cannot otherwise get such an address. I would also suggest you try to resolve the issue with SORBS, except that when I tried the URL suggested, I got ERROR: Couldn't prepare statement: $dbh is (undef). So I guess you could question the reliability of this particular service I have been in contact with SORBS, and with ISC.ORG. SORBS Australian operator Matthew Sullivan says sue me, I have no assets. I did engage an attorney in Australia, to review the possibility of a suit, and who confirmed that Sullivan had no visible assets. It would cost about $50k (US) to sue, and while Australian law provides that we can recover that, it cannot be recovered from someone who has no assets. ISC.ORG is the US promoter of SORBS (we got it booted from other US ISPs), 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. Fortunately, almost no one is using SORBS, or has Av8 whitelisted. Those few that have used SORBS (outside of ISC.ORG) have stopped using SORBS when the 130.105 listing is pointed out to them. --Dean ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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 the message is Av8? Av8 customers get it. DNSOP and IETF list members have gotten it. When I have to republish something to make a complaint then legally it is just like Mr. Austein published it himself. Defamation Tort Law. --Dean ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
