Re: ** Forged spamming going on
At 02:54 PM 12/22/1998 -0800, George Herbert wrote:
If the rules were bent in the NetSol case, it was bent in NetSol's favor, not visa versa.
Many people don't see it that way.
The bottom line is that the RBL is a powerful hammer, and the person in control is inclined to act capriciously without concern for anyone else or even follow his own rules about their "permitted activities" as he originally defined them in the pages on qualification for the RBL.
This opinion is unsupported by evidence.
Then you haven't been reading this list for the last month. And you certainly haven't been paying attention for the last year.
You have no more legal or moral standing to intervene than a fish does, at this point.
On that you are right. No one has any rights with Paul. But thats half the problem isn't it. There is no appeal to Paul. No appeals committee that makes sure there isn't some kind of personal vendetta or personal interest or otherwise unfair decision. Thats why we create standards and industry organizations isn't it? Perhaps a ARIN/Internic like organization should be created to run the RBL. Something that doesn't arbitarilly change its rules when it feels like it. Something that permits some recourse if it does.
It is obvious by your repeated unsubstantiated hits on the RBL, Paul, and the RBL team that you have ulterior motives. Those underlying motives are fine: healthy skepticism about net interactions is a good thing. But you aren't expressing reasonable, healthy criticism. You keep trying to invent incidents of RBL abuse to justfy making RBL go away.
I didn't invent the NetSol incident. I didn't invent the MSN incident last year. Those are operational issues. You keep defending indefensible conduct. It makes me wonder what your motives are.
This is, frankly, tiresome and immature. With the lack of substantiation,
Its you who attack my motives without any substance. I don't have any ulterior motives. I run a small ISP just like many people on this list. I'm rightly concerned about an unpredictable person with a powerful tool which can affect many ISP's operations. Whats tiresome is the continued praise of what are clearly Pauls mistakes. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 12:56 AM 12/23/98 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
On that you are right. No one has any rights with Paul. But thats half the problem isn't it. There is no appeal to Paul. No appeals committee that makes sure there isn't some kind of personal vendetta or personal interest or otherwise unfair decision.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
Thats why we create standards and industry organizations isn't it? Perhaps a ARIN/Internic like organization should be created to run the RBL. Something that doesn't arbitarilly change its rules when it feels like it. Something that permits some recourse if it does.
As soon as "we" (and this is certainly the "Royal We" because I have no desire to even attempt this) have some authority to do that, you let me know. The RBL is Paul's. It belongs to him. You and I have no more right to assume its functionality than I have to come over to your house and assume responsibility for your car for an hour to go for a ride.
I didn't invent the NetSol incident. I didn't invent the MSN incident last year. Those are operational issues. You keep defending indefensible conduct. It makes me wonder what your motives are.
Its not indefensible. From whence spam comes, black holes in the net appear. It's Vixie's Law, and its in some physics texts already I think. :)
Its you who attack my motives without any substance. I don't have any ulterior motives. I run a small ISP just like many people on this list. I'm rightly concerned about an unpredictable person with a powerful tool which can affect many ISP's operations.
Only if they go rogue can it effect their operations. :)
Whats tiresome is the continued praise of what are clearly Pauls mistakes.
Probably because most ISP's don't see them as mistakes. Regardless, this has a list that has been created for this sole purpose. Address your complaints there (and myself and many others will happy debate the issue with you there) D
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Dean Anderson wrote:
On that you are right. No one has any rights with Paul. But thats half the problem isn't it. There is no appeal to Paul. No appeals committee that makes sure there isn't some kind of personal vendetta or personal interest or otherwise unfair decision.
I think the fact that people on the RBL can still receive your mail says alot about Pauls supposed campaign of terror via the RBL. As with all RBL users I choose not to talk to the people that Paul does not want to talk to himself. This is *my* choice. Do you propose to to tell me how to run my network? If so please contact the legal dept. about purchasing a 51% share, otherwise stay out of the internal operational control of my network. Where are these many? I only see you, and your FUD is beginning to smell. Do you also fear the power of BIND? Given the widespread use of BIND you could be engineered right out of domain space... Hmm, lets hand over one of the systems most important to the daily operation of the net over to a committee, and say a oversight committee for bug fix handling. Throw in a bit of financial concerns (say bidding for the right to run a DNS server...), we could blackhole the planet. Now, lets take this elsewhere, politicking is not the domain of nanog, and this has nothing to do with keeping our networks unbroke. ---- Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about...
WOW - I guess they're all right ace - you do qualify - you have just been cast into my own personal RBL - enter the realm of /dev/null please enjoy your stay. Ring for the attendant if you need any kook-ies. On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Dean Anderson wrote: <sorry - nothing of substance here - please see /dev/null> -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I checked my archives and couldn't find the subscribe instructions for the rbl-discussion list. Could someone please post the subscribe info again so Dean can take his rants where they belong? - - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Rich Sena Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 4:05 AM To: Dean Anderson Cc: George Herbert; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ** Forged spamming going on WOW - I guess they're all right ace - you do qualify - you have just been cast into my own personal RBL - enter the realm of /dev/null please enjoy your stay. Ring for the attendant if you need any kook-ies. On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Dean Anderson wrote: <sorry - nothing of substance here - please see /dev/null> - -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals iQA/AwUBNoEOEzAufbtGOmgdEQJCvgCfR7oOullb05VF0WBOJTbzTP8sfDIAoIKh HW/MnhDi/9P6iEX/nxjtVQ4d =kIWF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
Christopher E. Brown -
Dean Anderson -
Derek Balling -
James D. Wilson -
Rich Sena