Subject: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:17:41 -0400 (EDT)

Point of order, please

It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is 
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc by returning business email to users of Av8 
Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address space.

Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior
and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives.  
IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for
defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:23 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400
from cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>
    (reason: 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx-1.isc.org.:
>>> DATA
<<< 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66
550 5.1.1 <[email-masked]>... User unknown
<<< 554 Error: no valid recipients

Subject: Re: [dnsop] draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
To: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400 (EDT)

I think it is a good idea too, but I don't see why it needs an RFC.  It is
purely administrative function in a nameserver to configure it not go give
out certain data to requests from, say, certain IP ranges. The issues of
'how it works' and what features, administrative syntax, etc seem to me to
be as proprietary as the server configuration file.

Indeed, it should be easy for some nameservers (powerDNS comes to mind)  
to do this now.  But it doesn't change the protocol, it just changes the
administration and operation of the server.

		--Dean

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Rob Austein wrote:

> At Thu, 06 May 2004 17:26:34 +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > 
> > 	could you tell me what happened to
> > 	draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt?  it has been expired
> > 	for some time now.  i think it is a good document...
> 
> I thought it was useful too.  If I recall the history of this one
> correctly, it was a WG document which a number of people liked, but
> the WG ratholed discussing how many angels can dance on the word
> "unreachable", why firewalls are an offense before God, Man, and Small
> Furry Creature From Alpha Centauri, and other nonterminating topics.
> The author, not being totally out of his mind, eventually found
> something more productive to do with his time.
> 
> This document is not on the WG's current charter, because the last
> time we asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening.  Absent
> somebody willing to work on it, there is no point in asking our ADs to
> let us put it back on the charter.
> 
> So: who cares about bringing this one back enough to work on it?
> 
> Given what happened the last time that I foolishly asserted from
> memory that an author had given up on a DNSOP WG doc, let me phrase
> this as a two part question:
> 
> a) Is the author interested in bringing back this document?  If so, he
>    of course has dibs.
> 
> b) Otherwise, is there somebody else who would be interested in
>    picking up the pen?
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:33 +0300 (EEST)

> defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc.

If you look at the message, you will note that it is a bounce from the
WG co-chair's _personal_ email address, directly to your email
address.

I'd say that everyone has the right to choose what mail to accept (or
not to accept).

You might or might not have a point if this behaviour happened on an 
IETF list, but that is not the case..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:33 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:19:46 -0400

> Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address space.

That may or may not be, but since you didn't show any bounce from 
uoregon, your claim of "abuse of DNSOP lists" in the subject line 
appears to be unsupported.

And I'd read the error message to suggest that perhaps Av8's net block 
had *been* hijacked (in someone's experience, not necessarily 
world-wide, which would be an interesting problem for globally 
distributed block lists), not that Av8 necessarily had done it.

> defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc.

Yes, I'm sure that SRA was the one who submitted Av8's netblock to 
SORBS, and set up ISC to use SORBS, as part of a secret plot to ruin 
your reputation. </sarcasm>

How about suggesting a more positive solution, instead of throwing 
around language like "defamation"?  Maybe, "IETF WG chairs should 
have/use addresses that don't reject mail based on unreliable block 
lists (for some definition of 'unreliable'), and the IETF should 
provide a forwarding service for those chairs who cannot otherwise get 
such an address."

I would also suggest you try to resolve the issue with SORBS, except 
that when I tried the URL suggested, I got "ERROR: Couldn't prepare 
statement: $dbh is (undef)".  So I guess you could question the 
reliability of this particular service....

Ken

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:19:46 -0400

Ken

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:34:13 -0400

Dean Anderson wrote:

>defaming Av8 Internet, Inc
>
How is it defamation if the only one that gets the message is Av8?

-- 
/=======================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com              |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.             |
|=======================================================|
|I'm not a bibliophile, I'm a bibliophiliac. Put me in a|
|bookstore, & my wallet bleeds.                         |
\=======================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:34:13 -0400

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:10:29 -0400 (EDT)

> WG co-chair's _personal_ email address, directly to your email

Actually, it bounces this way to all Av8 Internet Customers, not just to
me.  But it was a bounce to a message Mr. Austein posted on DNSOP. It was
not private business. It was IETF business.

Further, by reviewing the archives of DNSOP, I have found that Mr.  
Austein's home address is <[email-masked]>, which he has used
exclusively for some time until March 1st of this year. He first started
using the ISC.ORG address on a message involving
draft-ietf-dnsop-inadr-required. Perhaps coincidentally, this draft is a
pet project of Mr. Austeins, and one to which I (and many others) have
raised serious objections regarding both misleading and incorrect content
and procedural irregularities.  The archives show that since March 1st,
2004, Mr.  Austein has made all his DNSOP posts from [email-masked].  

> I'd say that everyone has the right to choose what mail to accept (or

They don't when they are conducting IETF business. IETF rules require that
participants not be excluded from IETF activities. WG chairs and others
cannot refuse email from participants.

As Joe Abley revealed previously, this configuration from ISC.ORG isn't
meant to actually block spam. The idea is to make Av8 Internet users have
to seek other email addresses by which to contact them, and to obtain
opportunities to defame Av8 Internet and perhaps others and convince users
to seek other services. This is unlawful.  Besides the defamation, it
would is an illegal group boycott, and an unfair business practice.

Refusing email is one thing, though that is still not permitted for IETF
business.  Defamation by claiming addresses are hijacked is quite another
thing. This abuse of email addresses is unacceptable, and illegal, and I
can engage legal action if necessary to prevent an organization like the
IETF from permitting this abuse to continue.

Mr. Austein cannot be allowed to use the ISC.ORG address for IETF
business.

> IETF list, but that is not the case..

Actually, it is the case. This involves two IETF lists, and the conduct of
an IETF representative on the DNSOP list. My republishing of Mr. Austein's
defamation to the DNSOP and IETF list to make a complaint is a
republishment for which Mr.  Austein and the IETF are legally responsible
under US defamation tort law.

Mr Austein as a representative of the IETF defamed Av8 Internet to me, to
the customers of Av8 Internet, and to the readership of both the IETF and
DNSOP lists.  Mr. Austein is a co-chair of the IETF working group.  This
defamation came about through IETF working group business.

The IETF is responsible for the conduct of its representatives on its
lists.  It is unlawful to permit its representatives to use addresses
which are configured to defame IETF participants, and it is against the
IETF rules to refuse email from IETF participants.

Dean Anderson
President
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:10:29 -0400 (EDT)

Dean Anderson
President
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:21:16 -0400 (EDT)

> appears to be unsupported.

Bounces don't have to come from Uoregon.  Mr. Austein is the WG chair.  He 
has to abide by the IETF rules, just like Uoregon (host of DNSOP)

> distributed block lists), not that Av8 necessarily had done it.

This isn't the case. And if it were, Av8 would make that claim, no one 
else would.

> your reputation. </sarcasm>

This has no legal relevance. Repetition of defamation is still defamation. 

> reliability of this particular service....

I have been in contact with SORBS, and with ISC.ORG. SORBS Australian
operator Matthew Sullivan says "sue me, I have no assets".  I did engage
an attorney in Australia, to review the possibility of a suit, and who
confirmed that Sullivan had no visible assets. It would cost about $50k
(US) to sue, and while Australian law provides that we can recover that,
it cannot be recovered from someone who has no assets.

ISC.ORG is the US promoter of SORBS (we got it booted from other US ISPs),
but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET
(ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints
about ISC.ORG.

Fortunately, almost no one is using SORBS, or has Av8 whitelisted.  Those 
few that have used SORBS (outside of ISC.ORG) have stopped using SORBS 
when the 130.105 listing is pointed out to them.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:23:45 -0400 (EDT)

> How is it defamation if the only one that gets the message is Av8?

Av8 customers get it.  DNSOP and IETF list members have gotten it. When I
have to republish something to make a complaint then legally it is just
like Mr. Austein published it himself. Defamation Tort Law.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:21:16 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:23:45 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:02:45 -0400 (EDT)

The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to 
ISC.ORG.  You are quite well aware of this.  Dissembling will not help 
you.

		--Dean 

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
To: bill <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189) (fwd)

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bill wrote:

>       I have no reason to act as your relay agent.  We have no
>       agreement in place for me to act in this manner.

The traceroute I forwarded shows that your IP addresses 198.32.176.4 is
assigned to ISC.ORG, which typically indicates a relationship.

>  8  paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4)  92.828 ms  91.036 ms  91.415 ms

On Mon, 10 May 2004 [email-masked] wrote:

> 	Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no 
> 	way to prove exists.  Unless or until you can prove that
> 	ep.net is an upstream for isc.org, please refrain from 
> 	making such statements.  Traceroute is not your friend in
> 	this case.  Defamation works many ways.
> 
> --bill
>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:02:45 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:32:27 -0400 (EDT)

I can't parse your statement.  I didn't say "assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service". Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
IP address space to abusers doesn't impune the rest of your services. This
was the claim made by Media3 in Media3 v. MAPS.  Media3 lost.

But assignment of IP address space does indicate a relationship.  Your
denials of that relationship are frivolous.  Now, as in January, a close
read of your message reveals that you didn't actually _deny_ the
relationship, you tried to convince me that there was no _proof_ of any
relationship.  With regard to spam, we call such "deniable" relationships
"pink contracts".  The spam-hoster tries to deny that anyone has any proof
there is a relationship with the spammer.

I'd love to be able to say you were violating you AUP, but you don't have
one published.  Indeed, it is rather interesting that neither EP.NET (Bill
Manning), nor ISC.ORG (Paul Vixie) had published AUPs.

But as Media3 V. MAPS demonstrated, we can call a spade a spade.  You host
abusers, we can call you abuse-friendly.  

I suspect this is off-topic from the subject of abuse on DNSOP lists.  I
would like to redirect anyone who would like to continue this offlist. I
will shortly put all of your January emails and you current emails
regarding EP.NET and ISC.ORG on the web under IADL.ORG (Internet
Anti-Defamation League).

		--Dean

On Tue, 11 May 2004 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> 
> 	assignment of IP space does not impune any other
> 	service. Asserting otherwise is foolish.  Pressing
> 	the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be 
> 	willful ignorance.  Please enjoy your blissful state.
> 
> --bill
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:32:27 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:48:59 +0000

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:16:41 +0000

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:16:41 +0000

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:23:58 +0000

if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council
 to persue remedies.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:23:58 +0000

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:04:31 -0400

On 10 May 2004, at 16:10, Dean Anderson wrote:

> meant to actually block spam.

What?

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:10:54 -0400

> ISC.ORG.  You are quite well aware of this.  Dissembling will not help

For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in 
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.

Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS. 
Perhaps we should move on.

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:04:31 -0400

What?

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:10:54 -0400

Joe

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:55:25 -0400 (EDT)

I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement in 
SORBS.   ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:

> this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.

This block is assigned to EP.NET.

> Perhaps we should move on.

ISC does more than just __USE__ SORBS. It hosts and promotes SORBS.  Host
abuse, you are abuse-friendly.

/usr/sbin/traceroute 204.152.186.189
traceroute to 204.152.186.189 (204.152.186.189), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  av8-camb-gw1 (198.3.136.1)  1.548 ms  0.869 ms  1.758 ms
 2  av8-qncy-gw1 (130.105.32.14)  4.338 ms  4.197 ms  4.125 ms
 3  qcy1-ar2-f2-0-314.gnaps.net (199.232.42.53)  4.105 ms  3.812 ms  4.504 ms
 4  qcy-m20-ge2-3-0-625.gnaps.net (199.232.44.45)  6.874 ms  4.224 ms  7.064 ms
 5  ash-m20-at-0-2-0.gnaps.net (199.232.44.53)  16.136 ms  16.263 ms  16.145 ms
 6  nyc-m20-ge2-1-0.gnaps.net (199.232.131.16)  24.379 ms  27.903 ms  22.061 ms
 7  los1-m20-at1-3-0.gnaps.net (199.232.44.10)  99.734 ms  94.698 ms  101.074 ms
 8  paix-gw4.isc.org (198.32.176.4)  103.482 ms  103.255 ms  103.596 ms
 9  r2-sfo2.r5.sql1.isc.org (192.5.4.248)  106.342 ms  110.758 ms  115.882 ms
10  www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net (204.152.186.189)  106.122 ms  110.523 ms  105.857 ms

As you can see, traffic to 204.152.186.189 transits EP.NET's 198.32.176.4
address block.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:55:25 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:46:16 -0400

> SORBS.   ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:

For a more complete list of resources hosted at ISC, you might try:

   http://www.isc.org/ops/hosting

> This block is assigned to EP.NET.

[...]

> As you can see, traffic to 204.152.186.189 transits EP.NET's 

If you are interested in learning about exchange points, peering, 
transit and interconnection in general, I'd can give you some pointers: 
you're missing some basic information which is leading you to jump to 
the wrong conclusions wrt 198.32.176.0/24.

I do lots of community education, and I'm more than willing to help 
out. But let's do it in private mail rather than this list.

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:46:16 -0400

[...]

Joe

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:12:06 -0400 (EDT)

I sent a response to Rob in regard to a post he made on DNSOP, and he
responded that my IP addresses were hijacked. 

		--Dean

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:

> 
> while Rob and I have had serious disagreements about
> technical matters in the past, I've never known him to make
> disparaging remarks about anyone, and a scan of the last 30
> days' messages on the DNSOP list authored by Rob (and
> delivered to my inbox) show NONE that mention AV8, it's
> products, customers, or business practices.
> 
> So, what's the fuss about?  Doesn't seem to involve IETF at
> all....
> 
> --Barr Hibbs
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> > Of Dean Anderson
> > Sent: Monday, 10 May 2004 13:24
> > To: John Stracke
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
> >
> >
> > dnsop
> > resources:________________________________________
> > _____________
> > web user interface:
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> > mhonarc archive:
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
> >
> 
>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:12:06 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 06:13:46 +0200

> Perhaps we should move on.

Yes, please. The topic has lost all information value relevant to the IETF 
list.

                Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 06:13:46 +0200

Harald

---

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:50:29 -0700

--Barr Hibbs

---

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:50:29 -0700

--Barr Hibbs

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:18:03 +0200

> This block is assigned to EP.NET.

I work for an IXP. Are you trying to say that that means that all
traffic that passes an IXP means that I am the upstream for that
traffic? It doesn't work this way.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:18:03 +0200

- - kurtis -

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:19:06 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 17 May 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> >> For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour
> >> in this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay
> >> Area.
> >

It certainly does when you've assigned them IP addresses.

But, I do find it rather funny that some (very few) people running
exchange points (which are the simplest of ISPs) don't think they provide
transit services.  For the less technical, an exchange point is a place
that provides rack space and a Local Area Network of some sort (think
ethernet, but ethernet has long been replaced by faster technologies).  
Other people (usually ISPs, but not always)  come in to an exchange point
and establish BGP peering sessions with other exchange point customers.  
Sometimes this is over the LAN provided by the exchange point, sometimes
they pull their own cable between their racks.  The only thing that is
different is that an exchange point doesn't need to have it's own AS
number, nor does it need to run BGP.  The lack of a BGP session doesn't
have any impact on whether there is a relationship with the customers of
the exchange point, nor on whether traffic is transited by an exchange
point.

When customers pull their own cable, one can't necessarilly tell that
those customers connected at an exchange point. That type of connection is
totally private. But LAN connections provided by the exchange point and
assigned IP addresses are just regular network connections, subject to the
rules and AUP of the service provider (exchange point).  An exchange point
is expected to behave just like other ISPs with respect to abuse and AUPs.  
Most exchange points do have AUPs, and most do handle abuse by their
customers.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:19:06 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 May 2004 23:35:08 +0000

[email-masked] (Dean Anderson) writes:

> ... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...

I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 May 2004 23:35:08 +0000

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:06:04 +0200

>I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.

Thank you :-)
jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:06:04 +0200

Thank you :-)
jfc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:36:57 -0400 (EDT)

Sigh. 

Harald, Please add __Another__ complaint to the chair about inappropriate
behavior by Mr. Vixie.

Oh wait, could it be that lying to the general public saying our address
space is hijacked is a personal attack?  Hmm.  Maybe they aren't as
'perfessional' as they made out to be.  Maybe these attacks aren't as
unrelated to the IETF as the Chair asserts.

I guess those that have to resort to name-calling don't have anything else
ot resort to, since they can't resort to facts.  And of course, indeed, no
contrary _facts_ have been given. Well, Vixie hasn't changed in 15 years,
still as infantile as ever.

And these irresponsible and immature people have operational control of a
root nameserver.  How did that ever happen?  That too, should be changed.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:36:57 -0400 (EDT)

Sigh. 

		--Dean

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:52:20 -0700

Mr. Anderson,

I note that your use of the terms "infantile", "irresponsible" and 
"immature" are personal attacks. These are inappropriate for the IETF list.

If you have serious complaints to make that you feel require you to use 
these terms, send them to me privately.

If you want to send mail to the public IETF list, be civil.

You have been warned.

                    Harald Alvestrand

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:52:20 -0700

Mr. Anderson,

You have been warned.

                    Harald Alvestrand

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:33:10 -0400 (EDT)

This isn't really a serious resolution.

It smacks exactly of the Army's response to the red cross over abuse at 
Abu Graib. For months, the Army has said it responded promptly to the Red 
Cross' written complaints. Today, in the NY Times, it was revealed what 
the response was:  Tell us when you are coming, and we will hide the abuse 
before you get here. 

A personal attack is "infantile", "irresponsible", and "immature".  
Calling a personal attack what it is, it not itself a personal attack. 

Talk about going through the looking glass.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:33:10 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean