Re: Email account utilization warning.
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? Dean Anderson wrote: 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. On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michel Py wrote: Darn Jasen, you just stopped the entertainment. It's a lot of fun watching how many could be caught by phishing. Michel. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jasen Strutt Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:02 PM To: 'Trang Nguyen'; 'Sean Weekes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PM To: Sean Weekes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean Weekes Sent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 7:08 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
As Freud remarked, Denial is avowal. Q.E.D. Dean Anderson wrote: 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 PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: 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? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: y'all crack me up
IETF did the same thing old Vernon did -- publicly post a private email You sent your private email to a public list, not exactly the height of discretion At least you know we won't sell your address to the DMA Registrant: Amour Eternal Hence the, um, juvenile preoccupation with the hot girlfriend, who is presumably flattered to be included in our little discussion 37 Marlowe Drive Asheville, NC 28801 Hence the y'all The fact is that you folks are losers and you're not too bright Point taken We *are* in counseling for the loser thing And of course the smart drugs should kick in before too long Go ahead and write to me using acronyms you know I won't understand RTMF, for instance? Have fun masturbating Is there any other way? and writing abusive mail to a man You stay out of my Inbox and I'll stay out of yours who would teach you some respect Damn! Respect, irony is there *anything* you don't know?
Re: Blue Sheet Etiquette
If I follow your line of, um, reasoning, any problem short of catastrophe is undeserving of our attention and anyone who takes such problems seriously (spam included) deserves ridicule. Admittedly, adopting this premise would save the IETF a lot of work ;) Book, Robert wrote: This email is reaching you, Greg, and I didn't attend the meeting It is a dangerous world out there, what with all the unsolicited meeting invitations via email, planes flying into buildings resulting in thousands being killed, offers via email to purchase services, bombs exploding in or near buildings resulting in thousands being killed, emails soliciting advice,collaboration or friendship, and missiles and bullets being launched and shot at people resulting in thousands being killed. Makes you wonder why you want to live in this world, doesn't it??? -Original Message- From: Gregory Neil Shapiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:35 AM To: Doug Royer Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Etiquette Doug Or do you think that spammers attend the IETF meeting just to get Doug email addresses? I can guarantee that they do. I use +detail addresses on the blue sheets and I have on frequent occasions received spam to those addresses -- specifically, recruiters and pay-your-own-way conference invites.
Re: Fwd: Re: A Stupid Ploy: Fwd: Who Is Bin Laden?
Einar Stefferud wrote: Hi -- I fully know that IETF folk do not want to clutter up the list with political stuff, Yup. but... I think shedding just a little more light on this one event should be OK. Really? Why? I sent that offending spam to a friend in Irvine, California, who likes to dig deeper into things like this and he returned to me the following research results, which you might find interesting. Hardly. His research results are trivial and his observations are shallow. And, of course, OT in this forum. I do not think there is much more to be said. Au contraire. But not here. ;)
Re: PATRIOT/USA followup: ongoing House debate
Better classified as social engineering Neil Carpenter wrote: Perhaps I missed it -- this has what to do with Internet engineering? Neil - Original Message - From: William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:45 AM Subject: PATRIOT/USA followup: ongoing House debate Last night, in a highly unusual maneuver, the Speaker recessed the House at 10:25 pm EDT, and didn't adjourn until 8:59 am, reconvening one minute later at 9:00 am. The reason? To file a report from the Committee on Rules at 8:58 am, on how to handle the anti-terrorism bill. The House will now debate and vote on this report, even though few members of the House have actually seen the report. Even minority members of the Rules committee haven't seen the report. This may rank as one of the biggest raw power grabs in US history. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Any value in this list ?
I'm doing the same. This is situation is absurd, and an embarrassment to the IETF. Those I've mentioned it to (some of whom are *very* active in WGs) just shook their heads in amazement. If someone does set up a filtered version of this list, please let me know. And thanks in advance. H. Szumovski (via secureshell) wrote: Hi All, if there is still somebody reading email to this list, I would be interested if they see any value in being a part of this list. 95% of email to this list are virus infected, and therefore deleted automatically by my mailserver, and I'm tired of filtering all the virus messages to the trash. Normally the listserver should just delete such messages without any information to the list itself. Because the listserver doesn't do that (which I think should be a standard behaviour of every listserver) I just unsubscribed from this rubbish. /Herbert PS: My opinion about the default behaviour of every well administered listserver is: .) Delete silently and don't forward ANY message with a virus attachment. .) Delete silently and don't forward ANY message with the uppercased string [spam in the subject. At 11:47 30/07/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incident Information:- Originator:Manh Chau Nguyen[EMAIL PROTECTED] Recipients:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dem-rep-sal WARNING: The file dem-rep-sal.doc.com you received was infected with the W32/SirCam@MM virus. The file attachment is not delivered. - - - - - - - - - mark durham writer and editor - - - - - - - - -
Re: Viruses
Server-side filtering is obviously a more efficient approach. As for noise, doesn't your post fit this category as well (or as badly) as the one you're responding to? The IETF list is a general discussion list, ideally focused on technical issues. Note that a number of users and/or domains are filtered out as they have repeatedly sent spam messages to the list. Given that description, I'm not sure I see how filtering is off-topic. John Starta wrote: All of which could have been easily filtered locally on your workstation. Rather than contribute to the noise, perhaps learning how to use the basic capabilities of your mail client would be time better spent. jas At 08:43 AM 7/27/01 -0400, Jon William Toigo wrote: I have received multiple infected emails from multiple sources over the past four days, followed by a flood of system generated warnings after each one. It's kind of ridiculous. JWT - Original Message - From: Greg Minshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon William Toigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:12 PM Subject: Re: Viruses i think *1* virus-attached e-mail going through the IETF list will result in 10s or 100s of the warnings (if that is what you are talking about).
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
R. A. Hettinga wrote: The punchline in all of this to me is that the aforementioned Tower was created to *unite* language, names, if you will, not fractionate them. Well, no. Before God got his dander up over humanity's hubris (chutzpah?) in trying to build a tower that would reach heaven (Trump, Wright, et al., take note), there was purportedly only one language on Earth. But in a Reaganesque attempt to disorganize the workers, Our Oh-So-Irritable Father put an end to that, inflicting a brutal blow against standards-based communication and setting the scene for Esperanto, the Rosetta Stone, and Woody Allen's What's Up, Tiger Lily? But your point *is* well taken. To mix a metaphor like a dead horse, people seem to be grabbing the wrong end of the biblical nit, here... Dead horses mix no metaphors. No matter which end you grab. Apologies for the OT Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' - - - - - - - - - mark durham writer and editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - -
