Scott playing gotcha games, qualifying, calling me a liar, contradicting me, second guessing, puerile one one-up-manship, etc, etc.
I think you forgot "FUD spreading" and "straw man". :)
Seriously, though, I want you to understand that the problem isn't that I hate you. I'm responding to your words, not you. I'm not calling you a liar, but if your words are inaccurate, I will point out that they are inaccurate. On the one hand, you've called me "weaselly", "Scott's Tea Party in Wonderland", "fantasyland", "FUD from Scott", "totally bogus", "absurd", "disservice", "toothless interpretation", "Quit pretending", "Always looking for ways to weasel out, aren't you?", "You're playing the contrarian, idiotic joker", "Mr Straw Man", "you know darn well", "shut up", "don't wimp out", "self-serving, FUD-riddled", "your personal agenda of hoping to hell that...". On the other hand, I do not believe I have ever attacked you -- just your words.
The real problem is that you have a lot of knowledge, but you put a lot of "spin" on it and often aren't quite as careful as you need to be with the "spin". If you post something that is 100% accurate, unbiased, and not misleading, I'm not going to respond. But once something becomes inaccurate or misleading, I'm going to call you on it. Why? Let's see:
Every time ANYBODY tells me what I can and cannot post in this forum, they're gonna get my response.
I didn't tell you what you can or cannot post. I told you that it was rude to post the information you did. The reason why I posted that was that you implied (perhaps without realizing it) that there was a security hole that caused sensitive information to be leaked. Yes, I know from your *subsequent* posts that you were referring to a potential DoS attack -- but one that few people either know about or are concerned about, whereas the sensitive information issue is very well known.
Imagine if I posted "Your website has a security problem -- if you go to http://www.example.com/admin/birthdays.asp, it responds with [insert list of birthdays here]" -- you would have a right to say that it was rude of me to post the list of birthdays, right? That's all I did -- said that it was rude.
But then you jumped in and pointed out that the security flaw that you were referring to was a different one. In my example, it's like me saying "But the list of birthdays isn't the flaw -- the flaw is that there is some JavaScript on that page that does XYZ".
Had you come out and said "Here's the security flaw that you have" rather than being vague and posting irrelevant and misleading information (the zone file), this issue would have been avoided.
I'm guessing that was your spin (although I'm sure you'll deny it, for whatever reason) -- I'm guessing that you wanted people to realize that there were security holes, but not know what they are, so that they would come to you for further guidance. That's OK, if you want to do it -- but once you present misleading information (making it look like a widely known security issue, and then admitting that it was not supposed to be that one), you have to accept the consequences.
So if you want to put a spin on your posts, that's OK -- but you have to be careful that you aren't misleading or inaccurate.
And then he admits his own ignorance, as "DNS expert", that he doesn't know WTF I'm talking about.
And I think that's what makes people appreciate my responses here.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000.
Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection.
Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation.
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
