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". :)
see "etc, etc".
Seriously, though, I want you to understand that the problem isn't that I hate you.
never said you did. As always, putting words in my mouth.
I'm responding to your words, not you. I'm not calling you a liar, but if your words are inaccurate
In your opinion, which is no better than mine. I've posted numbers here repeatedly to support my positions, you have never responded with numbers, just counter-opinions.
I will point out that they are inaccurate.
who appointed you guardian of the flame of truth, AS YOU SEE IT?
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.
... based on your behavior here. just like this post where you play games with "you/your words" distinction.
The real problem is that you have a lot of knowledge, but you put a lot of "spin" on it
show what spin there is?? substantiate your BS
your posts drip with pro-declude spin, and anti-what-declude-can't-do innuendo.
eg: the recent greylisting thread, where you had nothing to say about it's effectiveness or Imail/decludes' ability to do it (which was the question) but with some totally off the wall BS about some developer calling his thing greylisting. ie, FUD about the definition of greylisting. The spin: declude can't do greylisting, so you try smear it.
and often aren't quite as careful as you need to be with the "spin".
The real problem only exists only with you.
If you post something that is 100% accurate, unbiased, and not misleading
your hubris is risible. Since when are you the decider of what is accurate, biased, misleading?
, I'm not going to respond.
absolute BS. that's EXACTLY what did with my first accurate, factual post in this thread.
But once something becomes inaccurate or misleading
what was inaccurate or misleading about my first post in this thread? answer that, or STFU.
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.
Scott: "Please do *NOT* publish that information that you believe to be sensitive on a public list."
classic example: giving me (dns, security) posting advice (fat chance!) not to do something about my "belief" (you know what I believe?) when I didn't do what you're telling me NOT to do. That's the old "when did stop beating your wife" tactic.
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.
absolutely not. That was your interpretation, which, as you said, you didn't know what I was talking about. You make the wrong interpretation, stick your foot in your mouth, and theb accuse me of spinning? GMAFB. Classic Scott tactics.
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.
BS. any records that the DNS admin publishes in a PUBLIC DNS server by definition cannot be "secure" nor can they be considered "sensitive" since they are PUBLICLY available to all of Internet.
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?
I don't police/nanny other people. that's your self-appointed role.
Of the 1000's of people on this list, how is that only you have the puerile/gotcha compulsion to nanny/police my posts?
That's all I did -- said that it was rude.
But then you jumped in
I posted, I didn't "jump in". More unrelenting spin from Scott.
and pointed out that the security flaw that you were referring to was a different one.
I pointed out that your advice to me was total BS and erroneous, based on your admission that you didn't know what I was talking about.
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"
I did, very clearly: "allowing unrestricted zone transfers is a security vulnerability". YOU needed to interpret, wrongly, that plain-as-day statement simply because Len posted it, not because it needed your totally BS "interpretation".
rather than being vague and posting irrelevant and misleading information (the zone file), this issue would have been avoided.
iyo. There is no issue, except your self-appointed role as list nanny, guardian of the truth as you see it.
I'm guessing that was your spin
there was no spin in my original post to this thread. Show the "spin", or shut up.
(although I'm sure you'll deny it, for whatever reason)
because "it" is your erroneous opinion.
challenge: go to my original post in this thread and define any spin.
I'm guessing that you wanted people to realize that there were security holes
You're beginning to see the light, but it's a dim one.
but not know what they are, so that they would come to you for further guidance.
What don't you get about "allowing unrestricted zone transfers is a security vulnerability". where is the spin there?
That's OK, if you want to do it
gee, thanks. I'll stop beating my wife, too, if it's alright with you.
-- but once you present misleading information
I didn't. What info in my original post was misleading?
(making it look like a widely known security issue
I didn't make anything look like anything, except your agenda-driven opinion.
and then admitting that it was not supposed to be that one)
I have unspun, retracted, clarified nothing simply because there's nothing to retract, clarify, unspin.
So if you want to put a spin on your posts
show me the spin.
, that's OK
gee,thanks
but you have to be careful that you aren't misleading or inaccurate.
Again, giving me advice about what/how to post. shove it.
Len
_____________________________________________________________________ http://IMGate.MEIway.com : free anti-spam gateway, runs on 1000's of sites
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/
