This isn't really a serious resolution.
It smacks exactly of the Army's response to the red cross over abuse at
Abu Graib. For months, the Army has said it responded promptly to the Red
Cross' written complaints. Today, in the NY Times, it was revealed what
the response was: Tell us when you a
Mr. Anderson,
I note that your use of the terms "infantile", "irresponsible" and
"immature" are personal attacks. These are inappropriate for the IETF list.
If you have serious complaints to make that you feel require you to use
these terms, send them to me privately.
If you want to send mail t
Sigh.
Harald, Please add __Another__ complaint to the chair about inappropriate
behavior by Mr. Vixie.
Oh wait, could it be that lying to the general public saying our address
space is hijacked is a personal attack? Hmm. Maybe they aren't as
'perfessional' as they made out to be. Maybe these
At 01:35 18/05/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
> ... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
Thank you :-)
jfc
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
> ... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
--
Paul Vixie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 2004-05-11, at 23.55, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >> For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour
> >> in this, 198.32.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-11, at 23.55, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour
>> in
>> this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
>
> This b
gt; To: John Stracke
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
>
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2004, John Stracke wrote:
>
> > Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an
> email
--On 11. mai 2004 17:10 -0400 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS.
Perhaps we shou
he fuss about? Doesn't seem to involve IETF at
> all
>
> --Barr Hibbs
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> > Of Dean Anderson
> > Sent: Monday, 10 May 2004 13:24
> > To: J
On 11 May 2004, at 17:55, Dean Anderson wrote:
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement
in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
For a more complete list of resources hosted at ISC, you might try:
http://www.isc.org/ops/hosting
On Tue, 11 M
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
> this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering
On 11 May 2004, at 14:02, Dean Anderson wrote:
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address
to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is th
if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council
to persue remedies.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:32:27PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> I can't parse your statement. I didn't say "assignment of IP space
> __impunes__ a service". Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment o
DNSOP list members -
A friendly reminder about the list setup:
DNSOP, the Domain Name System Operations WG list.
Questions about the administration of this list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posts intended for the entire list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you plan to p
assignment of IP space does not impune any other
service. Asserting otherwise is foolish. Pressing
the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be
willful ignorance. Please enjoy your blissful state.
--bill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean Anderso
> but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET
> (ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints
> about ISC.ORG.
>
> --Dean
Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no
way to prove exists. Unless or un
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say "assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service". Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
IP address space to abusers doesn't impune the rest of your services. This
was the claim made by Media3 in Media3 v. MAPS. Media3 lost.
But assignment of IP
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
--Dean
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject
19 matches
Mail list logo
