Guys, on recent days I've seen an UDP attack a couple of times. The attack is fairly simple, a full load of UDP packets filled with "X". The attacks comes from various sites from the other side of the pond (46.165.197.xx, 213.152.180.yy). Has anyone seen this kind of attack? Basically, the attack aims to fill your pipe (150Mbps over an STM1... guess what...) Then the question goes like this: besides asking your upstream provider to block, drop or whatever on the offending traffic, and Kontaktieren Sie den Administrator, what else can be done? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Please contact me off list. I'll post a recap on due time. -- Miguel Mata Gerente de Operaciones Comunicaciones IBW El Salvador tel.: ++(503) 2278-5068 fax: ++(503) 2207-1310 mmata@ibw.com "La confianza es la mejor conexion"
On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Miguel Mata wrote:
Guys,
on recent days I've seen an UDP attack a couple of times. The attack is fairly simple, a full load of UDP packets filled with "X". The attacks comes from various sites from the other side of the pond (46.165.197.xx, 213.152.180.yy).
Has anyone seen this kind of attack? Basically, the attack aims to fill your pipe (150Mbps over an STM1... guess what...) Then the question goes like this: besides asking your upstream provider to block, drop or whatever on the offending traffic, and Kontaktieren Sie den Administrator, what else can be done?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Please contact me off list. I'll post a recap on due time.
There are a lot of different attack types that one might see as an ISP/SP of services. 10 years+ ago it would be an ICMP flood. Some of us took to rate-limiting the icmp echo/echo-reply traffic to 2Mb/s on links to mitigate the flood. UDP can be a powerful tool in the hands of a compromised server. I recall in 96 putting 100M of udp through a 10m firewall/nat midpoint. Had to drive to the office to kill the process. Without knowing the nature of the pattern you are seeing, it is very hard to advise anything other than to contact your ISP for filtering. Traffic against udp/0 (fragments) would be handled different than others (eg: udp/80). I've seen many people just add udp/80 to their standard filters since I'm unaware of any UDP HTTP implementations. You can try to determine why you were attacked, but that too can be as simple as a "script kiddie" on IRC to an attack with far more malicious motive and implications. - Jared
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:55:58AM -0600, Miguel Mata <mmata@intercom.com.sv> wrote a message of 30 lines which said:
Guys,
No gals on NANOG?
The attacks comes from various sites from the other side of the pond (46.165.197.xx, 213.152.180.yy).
How can you be sure? With UDP, you have zero guarantee on the source IP address. (Checking the TTL can give you a hint if the packets really come from the same point.) Source and destination port? If source port is 53, it may means you're the target of a DNS reflection+amplification attack, a la CloudFlare <http://blog.cloudflare.com/65gbps-ddos-no-problem>.
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:34 , Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:55:58AM -0600, Miguel Mata <mmata@intercom.com.sv> wrote a message of 30 lines which said:
Guys,
No gals on NANOG?
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
The attacks comes from various sites from the other side of the pond (46.165.197.xx, 213.152.180.yy).
How can you be sure? With UDP, you have zero guarantee on the source IP address. (Checking the TTL can give you a hint if the packets really come from the same point.)
Source and destination port? If source port is 53, it may means you're the target of a DNS reflection+amplification attack, a la CloudFlare <http://blog.cloudflare.com/65gbps-ddos-no-problem>.
I do not know of any name servers that reply to queries with UDP packets filled with only the letter X. The DNS Headers alone require more than the letter "X". -- TTFN, patrick
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:34 , Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:55:58AM -0600, Miguel Mata <mmata@intercom.com.sv> wrote No gals on NANOG?
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
heh. some people use it in a globally-neutral manner. "those guys over there" pointing at a rack full of servers. -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
some people use it in a globally-neutral manner. "those guys over there" pointing at a rack full of servers.
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. * Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write. "Those guys are chewing on that, but these gals are doing the vector calculations." (pointing at different racks of gear) Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out. I really wish that english had better pronouns for this. * As evidence of the nasty side effects of this, the bible was translated from a language which understands gender neutral terms to english, and was in translating reduced it to "man". Which is now used by only-english-speaking preachers to justify the "proper placement" of women in society. If for no other reason than that the use of a single gender pronoun confuses less intelligent types to assume that women aren't important in technology (and god knows this completely baseless assumption is widely held) do your part to mix it up! -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}? Owen Sent from my iPad On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
some people use it in a globally-neutral manner. "those guys over there" pointing at a rack full of servers.
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write. "Those guys are chewing on that, but these gals are doing the vector calculations." (pointing at different racks of gear)
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
* As evidence of the nasty side effects of this, the bible was translated from a language which understands gender neutral terms to english, and was in translating reduced it to "man". Which is now used by only-english-speaking preachers to justify the "proper placement" of women in society.
If for no other reason than that the use of a single gender pronoun confuses less intelligent types to assume that women aren't important in technology (and god knows this completely baseless assumption is widely held) do your part to mix it up!
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
As a form of address. "Hey, people" is ... well, nearly abrasive. (Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Since we all know that on the Internet "the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents", I think saying "guys" is OK. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:39 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral ----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
As a form of address. "Hey, people" is ... well, nearly abrasive. (Envision a waitron walking up to a mixed table of 10.) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'. What's up humans? Can I get you humans to drink? This rarely offends anyone. -- Landon Stewart <LStewart@Superb.Net> Sr. Administrator Systems Engineering Superb Internet Corp - 888-354-6128 x 4199 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Landon Stewart wrote:
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
What's up humans? Can I get you humans to drink?
This rarely offends anyone.
This discussion is a well-trodden (and tediously dull) path. My favourite response to it: http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1001&L=UVMRESNET&D=0&P=2278 Thank you Jason Healy. Jethro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jethro R Binks, Network Manager, Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
EEK-Wallet-EE! ----- Original Message ----
From: Jethro R Binks <jethro.binks@strath.ac.uk> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thu, September 27, 2012 2:23:28 PM Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Landon Stewart wrote:
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
What's up humans? Can I get you humans to drink?
This rarely offends anyone.
This discussion is a well-trodden (and tediously dull) path. My favourite response to it:
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1001&L=UVMRESNET&D=0&P=2278
Thank you Jason Healy.
Jethro.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jethro R Binks, Network Manager, Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
We may not all be guys. We may not all be gals. But we are definitely all CLOWNS. This is a substitution that should be acceptable to all and it really works. Sales-clown. Yep! Mail-clown. Yep! Fire-clown. Yep! Police-clown. Yep! Congress-clown. Yep! Yep! -----Original Message----- From: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstewart@superb.net] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:56 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'. What's up humans? Can I get you humans to drink? This rarely offends anyone. -- Landon Stewart <LStewart@Superb.Net> Sr. Administrator Systems Engineering Superb Internet Corp - 888-354-6128 x 4199 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock <lorell@hathcock.org> wrote:
Police-clown. Yep!
Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for policepersons is "pleb"... http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb Aled
Are we really still talking about this? On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Aled Morris <aledm@qix.co.uk> wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock <lorell@hathcock.org> wrote:
Police-clown. Yep!
Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for policepersons is "pleb"...
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb
Aled
Intention is everything, words are only part of it. If you can't determine intention and you get upset then it is you that has the problem. Ask or let it go and assume the best intentions. The world be a lot better off if we all did this. Lorell Hathcock <lorell@hathcock.org> wrote:
We may not all be guys. We may not all be gals. But we are definitely all CLOWNS. This is a substitution that should be acceptable to all and it really works.
Sales-clown. Yep! Mail-clown. Yep! Fire-clown. Yep! Police-clown. Yep! Congress-clown. Yep! Yep!
-----Original Message----- From: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstewart@superb.net] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:56 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
On 27 September 2012 11:34, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Using the word 'people' is good but I like to say 'humans'.
What's up humans? Can I get you humans to drink?
This rarely offends anyone.
-- Landon Stewart <LStewart@Superb.Net> Sr. Administrator Systems Engineering Superb Internet Corp - 888-354-6128 x 4199 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 9/28/12, joseph.snyder@gmail.com <joseph.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
Intention is everything, words are only part of it. If you can't determine intention and you get upset then it is you that has the problem. Ask or let it go and assume the best intentions. The world be a lot better off if we all did this.
Exactly. In protest against all the pedantry, in the selection of "neutral" terms; I suggest making a habit of doing the opposite of what pedants want.... in other words: just ignore the reaching-out-on-a-limb-and-trying-to-dictate-what-the-sky-means arguments about if-word-x-is-really-neutral. Use the neutral terms we are already familiar with, that are understood, convenient, and "natural"; If you think "Guys" is neutral, for cases where the distinction between gender isn't important, then that's how it is; it's not something that can be dictated otherwise by anyone other than the speaker. The understood part is most important, especially on mailing lists. And lo.... the OP has opened up a can of worms here on NANOG, which are crawling around, all over the place and setting up nests, creating infestations. Please kindly get every single one of the worms released, packed up immediately, reseal the can-o-worms, and ship them back to their natural habitat in the US, Washington DC, before Monday, so we can have fewer distractions from legit operational matters. Thanks, -- -JH
It's not suitable to refer to a single person of either gender. On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
When did "people" stop being an acceptable gender-neutral substitute for {guys,gals}?
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
some people use it in a globally-neutral manner. "those guys over there" pointing at a rack full of servers.
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write. "Those guys are chewing on that, but these gals are doing the vector calculations." (pointing at different racks of gear)
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
* As evidence of the nasty side effects of this, the bible was translated from a language which understands gender neutral terms to english, and was in translating reduced it to "man". Which is now used by only-english-speaking preachers to justify the "proper placement" of women in society.
If for no other reason than that the use of a single gender pronoun confuses less intelligent types to assume that women aren't important in technology (and god knows this completely baseless assumption is widely held) do your part to mix it up!
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"! Guys and gals = equivalent Boys and girls = equivalent Guys and girls != equivalent All the TV shows that refer to female contestants as "girls" are not helping when they (universally) refer to the males as "guys". Unless you refer to the male contestants (on TV) or team members (at work) as "boys" you shouldn't be using the word "girls" to refer to the females.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they jc
Here is the south we simply use "y'all". --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Zcorum On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"!
Guys and gals = equivalent Boys and girls = equivalent Guys and girls != equivalent
All the TV shows that refer to female contestants as "girls" are not helping when they (universally) refer to the males as "guys". Unless you refer to the male contestants (on TV) or team members (at work) as "boys" you shouldn't be using the word "girls" to refer to the females.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
jc
On 9/27/2012 2:47 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
Here is the south we simply use "y'all".
That's what I was thinking. Also, btw, I disagree with that earlier comment about gender usage in the Bible, as least in regards to the New Testament. The Greek language of that time period is the most specific/nuanced/sophisticated language in the history of the world.... far more specific/nuanced/sophisticated than modern day European languages. -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ rob@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
Maybe one of the folks here there aren't laywers but likes to give legal advice, that covers the use of male language to be for shortness in responses and no way indicate gender bias so we can all get back to talking about network :( Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"! Guys and gals = equivalent Boys and girls = equivalent Guys and girls != equivalent All the TV shows that refer to female contestants as "girls" are not helping when they (universally) refer to the males as "guys". Unless you refer to the male contestants (on TV) or team members (at work) as "boys" you shouldn't be using the word "girls" to refer to the females.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they jc
So say we all. Kevin Carmical Network Support UCA BBA 107 501-450-3107>>> <deleskie@gmail.com> 9/27/2012 1:52 PM >>> Maybe one of the folks here there aren't laywers but likes to give legal advice, that covers the use of male language to be for shortness in responses and no way indicate gender bias so we can all get back to talking about network :( Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"! Guys and gals = equivalent Boys and girls = equivalent Guys and girls != equivalent All the TV shows that refer to female contestants as "girls" are not helping when they (universally) refer to the males as "guys". Unless you refer to the male contestants (on TV) or team members (at work) as "boys" you shouldn't be using the word "girls" to refer to the females.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they jc
y'all youse ye do not use 'gals'.....i've been told that is offensive here in the south (i'm a yankee transplant) On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Kevin Carmical <KevinC@uca.edu> wrote:
So say we all.
Kevin Carmical Network Support UCA BBA 107 501-450-3107>>> <deleskie@gmail.com> 9/27/2012 1:52 PM >>> Maybe one of the folks here there aren't laywers but likes to give legal advice, that covers the use of male language to be for shortness in responses and no way indicate gender bias so we can all get back to talking about network :(
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message----- From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:36:03 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: guys != gender neutral
Or when actually referring to persons of mixed gender, here's a quote from something I posted in a private forum (my own journal) which is safe for export:
Because frankly, we're all in this together and honestly everyone loves
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote: the competition. The guys I race with often come find me afterwards and tell me where they got past me, or ask me how I kept passing them. The really fast girls rarely want more than a beer to go out on the track and give you a detailed breakdown on what you are doing wrong. We all help each other.
In this situation I'm leaving it up the reader to grasp that I'm not
saying that the girls are all faster than the boys, but I believe it's understood in context as the topic was about how peers help each other out.
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"!
Guys and gals = equivalent Boys and girls = equivalent Guys and girls != equivalent
All the TV shows that refer to female contestants as "girls" are not helping when they (universally) refer to the males as "guys". Unless you refer to the male contestants (on TV) or team members (at work) as "boys" you shouldn't be using the word "girls" to refer to the females.
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
jc
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/09/12 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
I really wish that english had better pronouns for this.
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words.
I find that "folks" is an excellent replacement that drops in most places I'm tempted to use "guys." On the other hand, using "they" as a replacement for "he" or "she" makes a sentence hard to parse. See that individual over there? They're fixing it. Ick! Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:36 AM, JC Dill wrote:
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"!
*shrug* Sorry you are offended. Some are, most of my friends use those terms interchangeably. (I'm referring to friends of the female gender) Apparently some on the east coast get offended by this, but that post was to a tight audience who I knew well. I use 'boys' and 'guys' interchangeably too, and that probably offends someone. It's not sexism :)
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well.
I completely disagree. Abusing plural words causes confusion when trying to discuss topics and be specific about the numbers involved. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
I think people should get the sand out of their crack (notice that both genders have a crack, wouldn't want to offend anyone) and quit looking for the bogey-man behind every door. If you constantly look for things to offend, you'll be constantly offended. On 9/27/2012 7:36 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:36 AM, JC Dill wrote:
It's NOT helping to equivocate "guys" and "girls"! *shrug* Sorry you are offended. Some are, most of my friends use those terms interchangeably. (I'm referring to friends of the female gender) Apparently some on the east coast get offended by this, but that post was to a tight audience who I knew well. I use 'boys' and 'guys' interchangeably too, and that probably offends someone. It's not sexism :)
I really wish folks would dig a bit deeper into the thesaurus to find appropriate words. One can use a variety of gender neutral words with some simple re-writing. Remember, it's perfectly OK to employ singular "they" as well.
I completely disagree. Abusing plural words causes confusion when trying to discuss topics and be specific about the numbers involved.
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with. Andrew On 9/27/2012 2:10 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew
I only wish you had used 'guys' instead of 'people' :) Ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guys_and_Dolls_(film) i -think- the term we are looking for is: Troglodyte 1: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish. /bill (top posting like a civilized human...) On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew
I only wish you had used 'guys' instead of 'people' :)
Ray
This isn't a real issue. HUNGER is a real issue. WAR is a real issue. 12 year old girls being sold for $20 into SLAVERY in India is a real issue. TERRORist attacks on embassies are real issues. Expansion of POLICE power is a real issue. Erosion of human and civil RIGHTS are real issues. This is window dressing. I've highlighted the important words for you, and for emphasis, because obviously you don't get it. Andrew On 9/27/2012 4:36 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guys_and_Dolls_(film)
i -think- the term we are looking for is: Troglodyte
1: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.
/bill (top posting like a civilized human...)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew I only wish you had used 'guys' instead of 'people' :)
Ray
thank you for your kind words and attempts to educate. clearly these items are critical for North American Network Operations (NANOG) and should be widely promoted and discussed ... But NOT, I think, here. may i humbly suggest that there exist other, better fora for discussion of these specific issues and ways/means to address them; Aleviating HUNGER Global Peace - where none take offense Exploitation of the helpless Definition of rights, both human and non-human. I would like to point you here: http://www.un.org/en/rights/ which actually has the charter to work on the issues that are so pressing in your mind. Can we kill this thread (oh dear, i'm advocating violence again...) and get back to Network Operations? Please? /bill On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:47:16PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
This isn't a real issue. HUNGER is a real issue. WAR is a real issue. 12 year old girls being sold for $20 into SLAVERY in India is a real issue. TERRORist attacks on embassies are real issues. Expansion of POLICE power is a real issue. Erosion of human and civil RIGHTS are real issues. This is window dressing. I've highlighted the important words for you, and for emphasis, because obviously you don't get it.
Andrew
On 9/27/2012 4:36 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guys_and_Dolls_(film)
i -think- the term we are looking for is: Troglodyte
1: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.
/bill (top posting like a civilized human...)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew I only wish you had used 'guys' instead of 'people' :)
Ray
I didn't think any of this should be discussed here, but I'm sick and tired of entitled whiners griping about some word that offends them. This still is not a real problem, and ALL of my points still apply. Andrew On 9/27/2012 4:59 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
thank you for your kind words and attempts to educate. clearly these items are critical for North American Network Operations (NANOG) and should be widely promoted and discussed ... But NOT, I think, here.
may i humbly suggest that there exist other, better fora for discussion of these specific issues and ways/means to address them;
Aleviating HUNGER Global Peace - where none take offense Exploitation of the helpless Definition of rights, both human and non-human.
I would like to point you here: http://www.un.org/en/rights/ which actually has the charter to work on the issues that are so pressing in your mind.
Can we kill this thread (oh dear, i'm advocating violence again...) and get back to Network Operations? Please?
/bill
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:47:16PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
This isn't a real issue. HUNGER is a real issue. WAR is a real issue. 12 year old girls being sold for $20 into SLAVERY in India is a real issue. TERRORist attacks on embassies are real issues. Expansion of POLICE power is a real issue. Erosion of human and civil RIGHTS are real issues. This is window dressing. I've highlighted the important words for you, and for emphasis, because obviously you don't get it.
Andrew
On 9/27/2012 4:36 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guys_and_Dolls_(film)
i -think- the term we are looking for is: Troglodyte
1: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.
/bill (top posting like a civilized human...)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:57:36PM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I really wish people would get over themselves and get to work. Work is a place where things get done, not where people piss and moan about every single perceived slight they can come up with.
Andrew I only wish you had used 'guys' instead of 'people' :)
Ray
Regardless of how y'all may feel about these issues personally, like most things regarding fellow humans The Robustness Principle definitely applies here.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? * As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that!) Scott
On 27 September 2012 16:08, Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au> wrote:
The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? *
As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that!)
Well played Scott, well played. -- Landon Stewart <LStewart@Superb.Net> Sr. Administrator Systems Engineering Superb Internet Corp - 888-354-6128 x 4199 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au> writes:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? *
As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that!)
Well, "either" sort of implies that there are only two sexes. I believe "people of any sex" would have been better. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender Bjørn
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays. On 28/09/2012, at 6:30 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au> writes:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? *
As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that!)
Well, "either" sort of implies that there are only two sexes. I believe "people of any sex" would have been better. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Bjørn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Parsonage" <eric@eparsonage.com>
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex. *Words* (and only words) have gender. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex.
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property: 6.2.7. GENDER Purpose: To specify the components of the sex and gender identity of the object the vCard represents. Value type: A single structured value with two components. Each component has a single text value. Cardinality: *1 Special notes: The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex (biological), and gender identity. Each component is optional. Sex component: A single letter. M stands for "male", F stands for "female", O stands for "other", N stands for "none or not applicable", U stands for "unknown". Gender identity component: Free-form text. ABNF: GENDER-param = "VALUE=text" / any-param GENDER-value = sex [";" text] sex = "" / "M" / "F" / "O" / "N" / "U" Examples: GENDER:M GENDER:F GENDER:M;Fellow GENDER:F;grrrl GENDER:O;intersex GENDER:;it's complicated Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
On 09/28/2012 09:43 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-09-28 12:15, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
The assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between gender and sex is old fashioned nowadays.
Mammals have sex.
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property:
6.2.7. GENDER
Purpose: To specify the components of the sex and gender identity of the object the vCard represents.
Value type: A single structured value with two components. Each component has a single text value.
Cardinality: *1
Special notes: The components correspond, in sequence, to the sex (biological), and gender identity. Each component is optional.
Sex component: A single letter. M stands for "male", F stands for "female", O stands for "other", N stands for "none or not applicable", U stands for "unknown".
Gender identity component: Free-form text.
ABNF:
GENDER-param = "VALUE=text" / any-param GENDER-value = sex [";" text]
sex = "" / "M" / "F" / "O" / "N" / "U"
Examples:
GENDER:M GENDER:F GENDER:M;Fellow GENDER:F;grrrl GENDER:O;intersex GENDER:;it's complicated
Simon +1 for bringing it back to a technical discussion in a round about way.
-- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
---- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
*Words* (and only words) have gender.
There's an RFC about that! RFC 6350, section 6.2.7, about the GENDER vCard property:
And kudos to Simon for bring it back to a semblence of on-topic-ness. Glad to see that the authors of 6350 were thinking ahead, but I (and I think OED) will continue to quibble with the choice of word. Just appropriating words that mean other things is generally not a safe approach... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying the other gender doesn't matter. *
The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=us&q=guys (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee? *
As other many words in the English language there are multiple definitions, and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is very much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that!)
The modern English language generally lacks gender-neutral singular personal pronouns that are distinct from the masculine versions; this is either a bug or a feature of the language, but it is also a fact. Some advocate the use of indefinite pronouns to work around this lack, but fundamentally, if you want to interoperate with others who speak English, it is going to be a losing battle to be offended when "guys" is used. The argument in the first quoted paragraph isn't strictly rational. It could easily be argued that women get the special term "gals" that does refer exclusively to women, while men get the more general term "guys" that does not exclusively refer to men. This could easily be taken to mean that women matter more than men, because they get their own special term. However, in reality, this appears to be mostly an exercise in how to find ways to be offended at random things that are simply part of the language, and if someone is just setting out to find ways to be offended, nobody better open their mouth to begin with... I would propose that randomly switching back and forth between "guys" and "gals" is a violation of Postel's robustness principle (look at that NANOG tie-in!), because being conservative about what you're sending probably means not referring to males with the term "gals." On the other hand, using indefinite pronouns when speaking would be a suitable workaround under that guidance. Rather than further breaking the language, it might be more sensible to modify the language to address the deficiency. Maybe that's an RFC, or just needs a real-world working implementation, but I'll note that several gender-neutral pronouns have died out, so maybe there's just no demand. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty attack," and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe "morons" or "idiots" might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing.
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said:
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty attack," and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe "morons" or "idiots" might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing.
I usually use 'critters' for that. salescritters, congresscritters, trollcritters.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:43:21 -0400, Miles Fidelman said:
Given that this thread started out as a query re. a "really nasty attack," and resulted in: 5 on-topic responses (2 of which also commented on "guys")
20 responses re. "guys" (I stopped counting) It occurs to me that maybe "morons" or "idiots" might be an appropriate gender-neutral framing. I usually use 'critters' for that. salescritters, congresscritters, trollcritters.
I'm kind of a fan of Greg House on this one. Or Mel Brooks, from Blazing Saddles: “They’re common people – the salt of the earth. You know – Morons”. :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Given the lack of truly neutral terms in english, I have taken to alternative my pronouns interchangably when I write.
"Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys", but I do understand why it can come across as exclusionary, and I try to force myself into the habit of "folks". It sounds a bit odd in English, although not as archaic as "chaps", which I'm also guilty of; I'm assuming there's no additional cultural assumptions attached to "folks" in American? Cheers, Tim.
On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
"Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys",
<pedantry>
folk is the plural
and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging
randy
According to my Dictionary, both "folk" and "folks" are acceptable plurals. Owen
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:18:54 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
"Folks"? I really do mean "folks" when I write "guys",
<pedantry>
folk is the plural
and, as far as the use of gender-biased terms, as someone said well the other day, when you are in a hole, stop digging
randy
According to my Dictionary, both "folk" and "folks" are acceptable plurals.
Somebody I know once described somebody else as 'pendantic'. I asked "Don't you mean pedantic?" and he replied "No, *you're* pedantic for asking. He just hangs around with nothing better to do." :)
Maybe the OP for "really nasty attacks" in hindsight wishes "NANOGers" was used instead to address the list. :) Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect. The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations. When we refer to our clients in a mass communication we either utilize our tools to auto fix their name to the letter or we address them as "OCOSA Family" or "All" or "Clients". We are a very family-oriented business and are "down to Earth." We'd like to believe our clients are apart of our family and some may take offense but you might or never would know unless an opportunity presented itself. Personally, I practice using the person's name, I am in communication with...not "buddy", "bud", "pal", "man", "guys", "gal" "y'all" and etc. When addressing mixed gender groups, I simply speak or address as "all". Thus, no mistakes. When addressing both genders you have to be extremely careful. Ultimately, It depends on the audience and treating all with respect seems to work for me. For example: You could address a group a men and call them "boys". Well, that might offend some, especially if they are older than you. For example: You could address a group of young adults and call them "kids". Well, that might offend some. As Owen mentioned saying "human" seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, "Oh I'm a HUMAN!!!!, well I that is true" then your temperature gets back to normal) :) In general, this is life and I simply have fun and enjoy it because it's too short. Otis
From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:otis@ocosa.com]
As Owen mentioned saying "human" seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, "Oh I'm a HUMAN!!!!, well I that is true" then your temperature gets back to normal) :)
Listen up you prehistoric screwheads... Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com>
Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect.
The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations.
As is embodied in the FidoNet Principle: Be ye not overly annoying... nor *too easily annoyed*. (Emphasis mine). It comes down to "if you accuse people of malice in things they said without any, of course they're going to start a fight with you." Cheers, -- jar -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Note: this will be my one and only contribution to this thread. While this thread has generated some very interesting and thought-provoking discussions, I still think it strays pretty far from being on-topic for NANOG. That being the case, let's all get back to operating our respective networks and let this thread go. Thanks jms
Ugly bags of mostly water? --- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org
-----Original Message----- From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:otis@ocosa.com] Sent: Friday, 28 September, 2012 05:33 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: guys != gender neutral
Maybe the OP for "really nasty attacks" in hindsight wishes "NANOGers" was used instead to address the list. :)
Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect.
The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations.
When we refer to our clients in a mass communication we either utilize our tools to auto fix their name to the letter or we address them as "OCOSA Family" or "All" or "Clients". We are a very family-oriented business and are "down to Earth." We'd like to believe our clients are apart of our family and some may take offense but you might or never would know unless an opportunity presented itself.
Personally, I practice using the person's name, I am in communication with...not "buddy", "bud", "pal", "man", "guys", "gal" "y'all" and etc. When addressing mixed gender groups, I simply speak or address as "all". Thus, no mistakes.
When addressing both genders you have to be extremely careful. Ultimately, It depends on the audience and treating all with respect seems to work for me.
For example: You could address a group a men and call them "boys". Well, that might offend some, especially if they are older than you. For example: You could address a group of young adults and call them "kids". Well, that might offend some.
As Owen mentioned saying "human" seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, "Oh I'm a HUMAN!!!!, well I that is true" then your temperature gets back to normal) :)
In general, this is life and I simply have fun and enjoy it because it's too short.
Otis
Ugly would usually be considered pejorative. Owen On Sep 29, 2012, at 20:59 , Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
Ugly bags of mostly water?
--- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org
-----Original Message----- From: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. [mailto:otis@ocosa.com] Sent: Friday, 28 September, 2012 05:33 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: guys != gender neutral
Maybe the OP for "really nasty attacks" in hindsight wishes "NANOGers" was used instead to address the list. :)
Having "all walks of life" essentially all around, it really makes one careful to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have going on, but no one is perfect.
The bottomline is, no one can really sastifisfy any indivdual and their preference of how they would liked to be addressed. If one is to be offended or looks for offense they will capitalize on it period. I try much as possible to avoid those situations.
When we refer to our clients in a mass communication we either utilize our tools to auto fix their name to the letter or we address them as "OCOSA Family" or "All" or "Clients". We are a very family-oriented business and are "down to Earth." We'd like to believe our clients are apart of our family and some may take offense but you might or never would know unless an opportunity presented itself.
Personally, I practice using the person's name, I am in communication with...not "buddy", "bud", "pal", "man", "guys", "gal" "y'all" and etc. When addressing mixed gender groups, I simply speak or address as "all". Thus, no mistakes.
When addressing both genders you have to be extremely careful. Ultimately, It depends on the audience and treating all with respect seems to work for me.
For example: You could address a group a men and call them "boys". Well, that might offend some, especially if they are older than you. For example: You could address a group of young adults and call them "kids". Well, that might offend some.
As Owen mentioned saying "human" seems okay and true but then again, because it's not the norm it raises some question. (Internal thinking process, "Oh I'm a HUMAN!!!!, well I that is true" then your temperature gets back to normal) :)
In general, this is life and I simply have fun and enjoy it because it's too short.
Otis
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote a message of 32 lines which said:
I do not know of any name servers that reply to queries with UDP packets filled with only the letter X. The DNS Headers alone require more than the letter "X".
Yes, you're right but I'm not sure we should take the original report too litterally. May be he meant there were a lot of X in the packets (and he missed the headers), which is consistent with DNS "large TXT" attacks such as the one described in <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/hh972393.aspx> (where the attacker filled with consecutive numbers, not X). Anyway, without the actual pcap file, it is only speculation.
Guys and gals, in the text file you can find 4 to 5 of the captured packets. Some really interesting stuff. Yes, there are some UDP/80 traffic but mostly is UDP fragmented traffic. On 27 Sep 2012 at 20:26, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12:50PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote a message of 32 lines which said:
The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: maravilla.txt Date: 27 Sep 2012, 15:41 Size: 47093 bytes. Type: Text
On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:34 , Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:55:58AM -0600, Miguel Mata <mmata@intercom.com.sv> wrote a message of 30 lines which said:
Guys,
No gals on NANOG?
Many. Although in fairness, some people use "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.
See, for example, "Sesame Street".
participants (45)
-
Aled Morris -
Andrew D Kirch -
Ben Bartsch -
Bjørn Mork -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brian Christopher Raaen -
Brian Henson -
Cutler James R -
deleskie＠gmail.com -
Doug Barton -
Eric Parsonage -
Eric Wieling -
Jamie Bowden -
Jared Mauch -
Jason Baugher -
Jay Ashworth -
JC Dill -
Jethro R Binks -
Jim Mercer -
Jimmy Hess -
Jo Rhett -
Joe Greco -
John Levine -
joseph.snyder＠gmail.com -
Justin M. Streiner -
Keith Medcalf -
Kevin Carmical -
Landon Stewart -
Larry Stites -
Lorell Hathcock -
Miguel Mata -
Miles Fidelman -
Otis L. Surratt, Jr. -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Ray Van Dolson -
Rob McEwen -
Scott Howard -
Scott Noel-Hemming -
Simon Perreault -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Tim Franklin -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin