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 <rsk@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