Quote from me that isn't (Re: Email account utilization warning.)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 12. juli 2004 12:55 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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:
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.
I do not recognize that as anything I have said.
Please point to the quote.
  Harald


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Dean Anderson]

This page lists his old address. Mr. Austein's current address (as can be
seen from the DNSOP archives) is [EMAIL PROTECTED] The current [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 PROTECTED] 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.




On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, David Kessens wrote:

 
 Dean,
 
 On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:07PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
  
 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html  
  
  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
 ---
 


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Quote from me that isn't (Re: Email account utilization warning.)

[Dean Anderson]

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 PROTECTED], 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.






On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

 
 
 --On 12. juli 2004 12:55 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
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:
 
  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.
 
 I do not recognize that as anything I have said.
 Please point to the quote.
 
Harald
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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.

[Dean Anderson]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, David Kessens wrote:

 
 Dean,
 
 On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:19:20AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
  
  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.
 
 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 ?

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
   complaint.

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.

   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:

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.



___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[David Kessens]

Dean,

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:07PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html  
 
 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
---

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Tim Chown]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:56:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Procmail filtering on 'From:|To:|cc:' is easy enough.  There's probably
 a way to get Procmail to snarf up the Message-Id: header for the sender's
 posting, and then look for that msgid in any References: or In-Reply-To:
 headers ('formail -D 16384 that_persons_postings' will get a cache
 going, but matching any header other than another Message-Id: is interesting.. ;)

I use procmail, but have a headache working out how to use the Message-ID
to filter out a thread started by someone in my kill list.   Using all
receipt headers is dangerous because if one of the loons joins a good
discussion the procmail may essentially DoS it for me.   I just want to lose
any posting and any thread started by anyone in my kill list.   At the
momnet I just have the former.

tim

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Harley David]

 This is interesting, as it goes against the current phishing trends
that
 tend to produce ultra-realistic baits; maybe it's not necessary to
spend
 all the time copying the target's logos and mimicking their fonts and
 style after all. Good ol' tricks still work.

Indeed. But this isn't a phishing scam at all. It's a mass mailer
virus - one of the Bagle variants, by the look.
 
-- 
David Harley
Threat Assessment Centre Manager
Malware and Email Abuse Management Specialist
NHS Information Authority


This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient 
please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in 
this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray 
before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation.



___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Michel Py]

 Michel Py wrote:
 This is interesting, as it goes against the current
 phishing trends that tend to produce ultra-realistic
 baits; maybe it's not necessary to spend all the time
 copying the target's logos and mimicking their fonts
 and style after all. Good ol' tricks still work.

 Harley David
 Indeed. But this isn't a phishing scam at all. It's a
 mass mailer virus - one of the Bagle variants, by the
 look.

I was looking at the social implications only; has someone actually
analyzed the payload?

I would not be surprised to see shortly a real phishing propagated by a
slow-spreading mass mailer virus (this might be a proof-of-concept).

Michel.


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Michel Py]

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

Indeed.

Michel.


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:10:57 PDT, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]  said:
  Tim Chown
  Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough. The snag
  is you see all the replies people send to their mailings :(
 
 Indeed.

Procmail filtering on 'From:|To:|cc:' is easy enough.  There's probably
a way to get Procmail to snarf up the Message-Id: header for the sender's
posting, and then look for that msgid in any References: or In-Reply-To:
headers ('formail -D 16384 that_persons_postings' will get a cache
going, but matching any header other than another Message-Id: is interesting.. ;)

The Gnus mail/news reader has adaptive thread scoring - so you can drop User X
and any followups/replies into non-visibility...


pgphSY6kNtlSZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:38:01 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED]  said:

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

Our virus scanners are still nailing some 30K Bagles a week.  Are there
really people net.clued enough to be subscribed to the IETF list, but
with so few e-mail contacts that they've never encountered a copy before?


pgpXwzvC1xvqB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[bill]

Title: Message



You 
would think this crowd is used to Joe Jobs and Phishing. Of course I knew 
the internet was coming to an end when Steve B. put up the Code Red statistics 
in London...

You 
would think at least this crowd would learn

Bill

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trang 
  NguyenSent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PMTo: 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]On Behalf Of Sean 
WeekesSent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PMTo: [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

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Dean Anderson]

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

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Mark Durham]

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.

[Michel Py]

 Bill wrote:
 You would think this crowd is used to Joe Jobs and Phishing.

Nah. Even if the scheme is crude and/or rudimentary and almost nobody
(except secretariat/staff) actually has an IETF e-mail account, it still
works.

This is interesting, as it goes against the current phishing trends that
tend to produce ultra-realistic baits; maybe it's not necessary to spend
all the time copying the target's logos and mimicking their fonts and
style after all. Good ol' tricks still work.

 You would think at least this crowd would learn.

Indeed this is not encouraging in terms of grandma being able to detect
phishing :-( Maybe I'll put a disguised Paypal donate button on my web
site and start a new career as a joe-jobber; looks like it could work.

Michel.


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)

[Jasen Strutt]

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

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




___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[David Frascone]

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

On Wednesday, 07 Jul 2004, 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
 

-- 
David Frascone

   Hindsight is always 20/20.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Mark Durham]

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: Email account utilization warning.

[David Kessens]

Dean,

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:19:20AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
 
 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.

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
---

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)

[shogunx]

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


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jasen Strutt wrote:

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

 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




 ___
 Ietf mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)

[Vernon Schryver]

 From: Jasen Strutt 

 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 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 PROTECTED]

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[Tim Chown]

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

Tim

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Frascone wrote:
 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
 
 On Wednesday, 07 Jul 2004, 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
  
 
 -- 
 David Frascone
 
Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
 ___
 Ietf mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Email account utilization warning.

[support]

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
[Filename: Text.pif, Content-Type: application/octet-stream]
The attachment file in the message has been removed by eManager.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Rebecca L. Page]

I have not recently used my account, so
reinstate it now!!! I suggest you
do a more through investigation prior to turning off legitimate access for a
member, without prior warning. Fix
this now!!!



Rebecca L. Page, Ph.D.



Teris Consulting Group



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:08
AM
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

Re: Email account utilization warning.

[David Frascone]

Perhaps with a  more through[sic] investigation of the headers, you
would have identified that mailing as forged.

-Dave

On Tuesday, 06 Jul 2004, Rebecca L. Page wrote:
 I have not recently used my account, so reinstate it now!!!  I suggest
 you do a more through investigation prior to turning off legitimate
 access for a member, without prior warning.  Fix this now!!!
  
 Rebecca L. Page, Ph.D.
  
 Teris Consulting Group
  
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:08 AM
 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


-- 
David Frascone

  To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Sean Weekes]

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

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Trang Nguyen]

Same 
with me. Please don't cut us off without reasonable 
explanation.

Regards,

Trang 
Nguyen

  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Sean WeekesSent: 
  July 6, 2004 2:58 PMTo: [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

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Jasen Strutt]

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]On 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

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[John Buda]

Remain 
calm members,
Its a 
bogus email.

Its 
not from the IETF..

Someone is just having fun with the IETF email 
list...

John 
Buda
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Email account utilization warning.

[Michel Py]

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