On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > I find it hard to imagine that you, Randy, of all people would take > issue with a situation where people were perceived to be being > difficult just because they enjoyed it.
Alright, let me clarify a lot of things here in regards to my posting and I hope you'll take the time to read it in order to get a glimpse of me and my posting(s). >> Technical details of permanent failure: >> PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client >> host [209.85.198.190] blocked using ubl.unsubscore.com; Sender has >> sent to LashBack Unsubscribe Probe accounts So let me get this correct, I who decided to use an rbl/ubl/spam filter am in the wrong, or is it the provider who blacklisted the IP space in the wrong. > 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, > and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. Character assassination? Do you recall me responding to you off-list for sake of abiding by your terms only to have you "assassinate my character" by requesting that the NANOG community remeind of what the AUP is on list? Isn't this an oxymoron? > Let me reiterate that my motivation was my interpretation of your > conduct on the list previously as being fairly non contributory and > combative, as demonstrated above. It's certainly ok for you to > disagree. I welcome it so that we can attempt to make the list better. > That does not mean that you are correct. YOUR INTERPRETATION. Is your interpretation that of the entire administrative staff at NANOG as a whole. I'm not combative - defensive. I responded to a post - your interpretation was I was being a smart ass. I call it satire similar to Saturday Night Live. I responded to you and the admins you cc'd I didn't cc the list you did. You were the one who got defensive and reposted to the list. Why I have no idea, but that was your decision. YOUR INTERPRETATION perhaps should be reinforced by others on the list, e.g., to iterate again, I once posted about operators who had dirty networks and whats the solution when they don't clean em up, the majority complained "off topic". Off topic? I scratched my head. How can a million plus botnet be off topic. Should everyone wait until it is used to flail their hands? Puzzles me. > Your belief that my interpretation is incorrect, and open for debate, > is noted and will be taken up with a higher power at a later date. No debates here, you stated your point, I understood and disagreed to you OFF-LIST - you took it to the next step, why who knows. So since its best to be ON TOPIC, I ask this, for the past 3 months I developed a tool that is certain to disconnect anything that has a connection. Period. It can be sent from a personal PC on a DSL connection and will shred most routers, firewalls to pieces. This was sent to people in the IETF in order for me to not create any sort of ruckus. Sent to 5 ESTABLISHED individuals 3 of which are NANOG members and have written RFC's. Sent to Cisco's PSIRT, they're stumped as to why it causes their routers and Pix' to freeze. Juniper? Same. In fact anything that is connected... Frozen. If I sent the code and the write up out to NANOG, would it be on topic or off topic. On the one hand its a DoS attack to make Smurfs look like a mosquito in your ear, this is a swarm of killer bees... So on one hand, Denial of Service off topic, on the other, disconnecting backbones, on topic. There are a lot of mis(sed)conceptions of who I am, my sense of humor and the disconnect between me being arrogant, "combative", or someone who views things from a different angle. Combative, me? Never, I just will never let anyone try to kick me period. Never have never will. Arrogant? Not at all, I've been fortunate enough to deal with others off list who've inspired me, taught me the ropes and were kind enough to set me on the right track and humble me. To them I bow on a daily basis. I don't mind discipline but finger pointing is a pet peeve. So as far as when you sat "debate", wouldn't that be like the first rule of Fight Club? 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited. > Best Regards, > > Martin Hannigan > NANOG MLC Member > Combative? No. I believe that many can contribute in different aspects that might not have been visible or even a notion to others. Some people tend to think outside of the norm. My hobbies? What a life... I track pedophiles for three different agencies no cost, been doing so since EHAP 1997. Other hobbies? Tracking botnets and making programs to monitor and detect those botnets and inform network operators. These are things I do on my own time, I don't bitch moan and gripe. I look at it as my little contribution to e-Society. My sense of humor does not appeal to all and I don't expect it to, but I also don't expect someone to get bent out of shape and attempt to throw in an aura of "entitlement" because they believe they're higher than someone else. Sorry, that's my opinion. Many of us most likely have never corresponded to one another on a personal level so its difficult to assess whether someone is quirky, humorous or an outright ass. I think of myself as curiously humorous. I'm forever reading RFC's (PRINTED at that) and tinkering for the sake of learning whatever I can. I continuously attempt to contribute whatever I can back to those who've helped. Go see the Asterisk mailing, go see how I've posted script after script after script in order to help people. Go on the Way Back Machine before David Dittrich and see how I wrote up a quick How To Stop DoS before it became cliche. Don't judge me based off a few words without understanding their meaning or intent. Or judge me based off of something you heard or read, or something someone else said... Judge me based off of what you know directly, else anything else is being a hypocrit. As for my NANOG postings, I will make sure they're from here on out as "on topic" as they can be. As for doing something moronic and taking personal things right back to list, that's child's play and elitist bullshit if you ask me. Seasons greetings Jesus OquendO -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA #579 (FW+VPN v4.1) SGFE #574 (FW+VPN v4.1) echo c2lsQGluZmlsdHJhdGVkLm5ldAo=|\ python -c "import sys; print sys.stdin.read().decode('base64')" http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures