On Fri, 14 May 1999 11:17:05 +0200 (MET DST) Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@noc.dfn.de> wrote:
A little less detail would have been appropriate, IMHO.
In something like this less detail means that nobody does anything, sad but true. I used nanog as it seems to be the only way to talk to alot of ISPs easily and seemed relevant to the theme of that mailing list. If you have a problem with the archiving of lists I'm sure we can donate you a disk drive and 3 lines of perl to filter out long email messages. If you don't want to recieve this type of message, then unsubscribe is your friend, there will always be people attacking networks and we will always have to work together on issues like this. No I don't like it either but its the way it is. I actually intended to write a script to get the AS path of the offending packets and post that also so I guess in the end you got your wish and I did post a little less detail. I'll put up a url next time but doing that impacts on the response that one gets to this type of message. Regards, Neil.