Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning.

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:47:45 -0700

Darn Jasen, you just stopped the entertainment. It's a lot of fun watching how many could be caught by phishing.

Michel.

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jasen Strutt
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:02 PM
To: 'Trang Nguyen'; 'Sean Weekes'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning.

Did anyone take mention of the virus infected file that was attached to the email?  Did anyone take mention that the header information is junk? I hope spam and phishing are not foreign terms to you. 
 
Please perform 20 seconds of due diligence prior to jumping to conclusions and blasting the IETF list.  
 
Regards-
Jasen  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PM
To: Sean Weekes; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning.
 
Same with me.  Please don't cut us off without reasonable explanation.
 
Regards,
 
Trang Nguyen
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sean Weekes
Sent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning.
Please can you reinstate my account or at least explain in more detail the reason for your actions here.
 
I'm not happy that you arbitrarily undertake this course of action without prior notification or discussion.
 
I also am at a loss as to why you have done this.
 
Please can you elaborate.

Regards.
Sean Weekes
General Manager, ICONZ
www.iconz.co.nz

 
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 7:08 p.m.
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Email account utilization warning.
Dear user of Ietf.org,

Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access.

For more information see the attached file.

Kind regards,
    The Ietf.org team                 http://www.ietf.org 

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 02:19:20 -0400 (EDT)

Given the recent unreasonable behavior by IETF staff where they really are
blocking blocking of email from members, it is not very unreasonable to be
fooled by such a thing.  People have come to expect this from the IETF.

Dean Anderson 
Av8 Internet, Inc 

P.S. I am still blocked from emailing DNS WG chair, and prevented from
registering complaint about improper DNS WG RFC process activity by ISC
and DNS WG chair Austein, because the IETF chairman Alvestrand demands
that such complaints be made offlist, yet chairman Alvestrand refuses to
require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants.  Under chairman
Alvestrand's leadership, the IETF can choose to ignore complaints based on
the participant, rather than the merit of the complaint.  And Although
this runs contrary to every stated principle of the IETF, contrary to many
suggestions of many other participants, contrary to civil courtesy, and
contrary to lawful behavior, chairman Alvestrand is not moved from his
course.  He leaves us no choice but to engage lawyers against the IETF.  
This is very sad.

---

From: Mark Durham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:46:48 -0700

Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here?

I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, 
and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer 
your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, 
and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation 
that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you 
are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can 
trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some 
other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the 
meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal 
song cue.

Is this really too much to ask?

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:34:11 -0400 (EDT)

Mark, 

To fool people, the "phish" has to be plausible.  In this case, people
have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the
"phishing" claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm
of the expected behavior.  People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it
might might happen again.

"Dean Anderson" is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic;  The
IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF
leadership is the topic.  Those who don't want to address the problems try
to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about
whoever else is being abused at the moment.  It's not about Dean Anderson;
It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed
and disparaged by a select few abusers.  Its about abusive behavior by a
select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the
leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership
in the abuse.

It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF
rules and the IETF principles.  Is that too much to ask?  When the
leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary
to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by
others.  These things don't happen in a vacuum.  The complaints of Dean
Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the
IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor
to the IETF.  And we see the effects of that: People come to expect
capricious behavior from the IETF and so the "phishing" premise isn't out
of the realm of the expected behavior.  People saw the IETF do it before,
and expect it might might happen again.  Solve the problem: Obey the IETF
principles and rules. Then such "phishes" will be out of character, and 
people would be more suspicious of such a "phish".

As I said offlist to Mark Smith:

  From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
  To: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
  Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning.

  Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF
  leadership that is disgraceful.

  But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a
  private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by 
  their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them.

                --Dean

  On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote:

  > If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove
  > yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop
  > "contributing" too them?

---

From: "Jasen Strutt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:18:27 -0700

"Dean Anderson"
Would you give it a rest already? Take your issue(s) up with the appropriate
person(s) in a separate, mutually exclusive thread, and stop blasting the
IETF list.  

I'm sure you'll be unable to contain yourself and blast yet, another message
out, about how everyone else is wrong, and you have the ideas which lead us
to the wonderland of end all. Therein lies the problem.   

Your continued replies are a surefire way to test my "poignant 'stuff' from
"Dean Anderson" to ignore" ...."rule".

Cheers- 
Jasen  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dean
Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:34 AM
To: Mark Durham
Cc: Michel Py; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning.

Mark, 

                --Dean

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:58:47 -0500

I wonder how hard it would be to set my mail server to drop your mail
too?  Since, obviously, "Email account utilization warning" has nothing
to do with your rants. . . 

-Dave

-- 
David Frascone

                   Hindsight is always 20/20.

---

From: Mark Durham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:44:25 -0700

As Freud remarked, "Denial is avowal." Q.E.D.

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:39:30 -0700

Dean,

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:19:20AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants.

Can you please keep the facts straight:

- there is no such thing as the DNS WG
  do you mean the dnsop working group by any chance ?

- the dnsop working group has two chairpeople, not just Rob Austein

- you are not blocked by Rob Austein or prevented from registering a
  complaint.
  it has been pointed out to you that you have the ability to
  communicate with Rob Austein using the mail address that is posted
  on the ietf dnsop charter web page:
  http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html  

Thanks,

David Kessens
---

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:25:15 -0400 (EDT)

I would agree.  Perhaps an inquiry as to the motives behind this continual
attack that the IETF has endured would help mitigate the situation.

> > Is this really too much to ask?

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:33:08 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "Jasen Strutt" 

> person(s) in a separate, mutually exclusive thread, and stop blasting the

I would rather not offend you, but please consider that good advice.
Please do not respond to those whose only interest is provoking a
response, any response from anyone and so being reassured they exist
and that people care about them, even if those concerns are negative.
Many of us know of their messages only when people respond to them,
and would rather not have that particular clipping service.

The differences among trolling, trollbaiting, countering trolls, and
everything else related to trolling are almost entirely in the minds
of the players.  To the rest of the world it is all useless, costly noise.

As for the Internet experts who still don't recognize phishing or
Microsoft worm noise when it hits their mailboxes, the Secretariat
should interpret complaints sent to the thousands of readers of this
list as requests to be unsubscribed with prejudice from all IETF mailing
lists, particularly when their complaints are double-encrypted in
base64 and HTML.  Such people are better served reading IETF mailing
lists through archives such as http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/

I promise to try to apply that policy to the minor, non-IETF lists
that I run.

I don't intend any criticism of those who choose on their own to use
archives instead of subscribing.  That's how I follow some mailing
lists that for various reasons I choose to not give my address.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:08:23 +0100

Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough.   The snag is you see all
the replies people send to their mailings :(

Tim

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:55:07 -0400 (EDT)

>   do you mean the dnsop working group by any chance ?

Yes. That is correct.

> - the dnsop working group has two chairpeople, not just Rob Austein

At present.

> - you are not blocked by Rob Austein or prevented from registering a

I have posted the blocked messages in the past. Are you asserting that
something has changed?  I am not aware of any change.  Indeed, Chairmain
Alvestrand has clearly stated that he has not requested any change.

>   on the ietf dnsop charter web page:

As Chairman Alvestrand has clearly stated, IETF email lists are not to be
used for making complaints.  One is not supposed to make complaints to the
DNSOP list.  The only exception to this rule is the main IETF list which
has administrative discussion as its purpose.

>   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html  

Yes, I've read this carefully.

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:58:33 -0700

Dean,

> Yes, I've read this carefully.

Did you really ? If you did, you would have found a mail address of
Rob Austein that you can use to send him mail.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:02:05 +0200

> has administrative discussion as its purpose.

I do not recognize that as anything I have said.
Please point to the quote.

               Harald

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:20:49 -0400 (EDT)

This page lists his old address. Mr. Austein's current address (as can be
seen from the DNSOP archives) is [email-masked]. The current [email-masked]
email address does not receive email from Av8 Internet or any of its
customers due to Rob's (and hence the IETF's) participation in an unlawful
boycott**.

Please do not forget that this is not the first time that the DNSOP and/or
Namedroppers chairs have attempted to ignore private complaints. They have
even altered on-list email from participants and inappropriately published
the private unsubscription addresses so that forged unsubscriptions can be
issued to Majordomo.  See for example complaints by Dan Bernstein.  
Majordomo has a security flaw that allows unsubscriptions to be forged if
you know the subscription address.  Their latest scheme is just a
continuation of their previous misbehavior.

		--Dean

** Please note that this boycott has nothing whatsoever to do with spam or
spam-blocking.  Note also that the emails we refer to as "bounces" are not
actually bounces in the commonly used sense of a mail delivery error. The
messages do not represent a genuine mail system error: They make the false
claim that "[email-masked]" doesn't exist. In fact, this address does exist.  
The response messages are in fact intentionally configured auto-responder
messages which are meant to harrass and annoy.  As Joe Abley noted, they
are not even meant to block email.  It is only Chairman Alvestrand (and of
course Paul Vixie), who misleadingly claim that these messages are genuine
mail delivery errors.  I note that both Chairman Alvestrand and former
chair Randy Bush each initially responded that these messages weren't
really bounces, and that reporting them as genuine failures was "designed
to attract a stupid response".  It is only after they are asked to enforce
the various IETF and ISOC policies with respect to computer harrassment by
auto-responder that they have decided to (disingenously) view them as
genuine mail system failures.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:14:23 -0400 (EDT)

Funny that: if you don't recognize the statements, why don't you clearly
state that is appropriate to make complaints on-list and refute those who
ask for such complaints to be made offlist?  Complaints _should_ be made
offlist.  

Myself, Dan Bernstein, and I think others have been chastised for making
on-list complaints.  Of course, we have only made them public after they 
were privately ignored.

Of course, making every complaint on-list would be unreasonable--not to
mention inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons. It would subject the
IETF to claims of defamation, for example.  So is your objection here
anything but frivolous? 

		--Dean

On 26 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> [ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy 
to
>   miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  your subscription address is
>   [email-masked], please post from it or 
>   fix subscription your subscription address! ]
> 
> I've sent twelve messages to the namedroppers mailing list this month.
> Five of them have been silently discarded by the namedroppers censor,
> Randy Bush. (See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous
> incidents.)
> 
> Bush says that the only relevant feature of my messages is that they're 
> sent from an address that isn't subscribed to namedroppers. Okay, boys
> and girls, let's look at some statistics:
> 
>    * 5/12 of my messages have been silently discarded;
> 
>    * according to Bush, this has nothing to do with me or the content,
>      so we estimate that about 5/12 of all non-subscriber messages have
>      been silently discarded;
>
>    * in the past three months, there have been about 100 legitimate
>      messages from other people who Bush labelled as non-subscribers;  
> 
>    * so we estimate that, in the last three months, Bush has silently
>      discarded about 71 legitimate messages from other people. That's a
>      rate of hundreds per year.
>
> Bush doesn't say ``Your message didn't go through.'' Bush doesn't say
> ``Reply to this bounce to confirm your original message.'' He simply
> throws the message away.
>
> This is supposed to be the mailing list for an open IETF working group.
> It's outrageous that valid messages are being silently discarded---even
> if the number is not as large as hundreds per year.
>
> ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
> Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> P.S. Out of my twelve messages, the five that were silently discarded
> are exactly the five that I would pick if I were a censor trying to bias
> the DNSEXT decisions in favor of the BIND company. Coincidence, right?
>
> P.P.S. Bush's mailing-list software doesn't cryptographically confirm
> unsubscription requests. I kept my subscription address private until
> Bush revealed it a few days ago. I'm working on obtaining a subscription
> through an address that Bush doesn't know is connected to me.
>
>
>