Addressing the complaint that my response to Gadi was too harsh, I can only say that, to someone who isn't aware of the history, my response may seem harsh,
I *AM* aware of the history and your response seems harsh. Especially so because you complained about a message which was about exploits in CPE access routers, not botnets. Any kind of router vulnerability/exploit is on topic for NANOG. And people who don't take the trouble to read messages and critique the message content, should not post to the list at all. We don't need you using NANOG to fight your personal flamewar with Gadi.
but anyone who has seen the endless trolling of NANOG-L, the numerous requests (public and private) asking Gadi to cut it out, the extensive discussions on IRC, in private email and elsewhere will understand that the forcefulness of my request is appropriate given the fact that all previous attempts to end this needless disruption of NANOG-L have been ineffective.
Well, since I have some knowledge of these communications and the fact that a number of people have thanked Gadi for his work and urged him to continue posting to the NANOG list from time to time, I do *NOT* understand the forcefulness of your request. The fact is that there are two sides to this story, and that the 8000 or so NANOG members are somewhat divided on the issue. But one thing is clear, messages like yours are not useful to any of the list members, but many of Gadi's messages *ARE* useful to some of the list members. In a group of 8000 people, I expect the best anyone can hope for is that most of the messages on the list will be useful to some of the list members. If that isn't good enough for you, there is a mailing list committee and a steering committee that you can complain to, but privately please, not on the list. --Michael Dillon