Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Theodore Ts'o ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.
His premises about my logic are false.
But more to the point, we are discussing the question of whether the IETF
should accept the statements of court-proven liars. My logic about open
relays and blacklists is irrelevant to that question.
--Dean
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Ted is talking about your logic, not your facts.
>
> Brian
>
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > Ted, you still have your facts wrong.
> >
> > Your analysis is therefore incorrect as well.
> >
> > --Dean
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dean,
> >>
> >>Let me try to break it down for you:
> >>
> >>X = "Many ISP's address blocks were labelled as spammers by
> >> a few spam-blocking lists (one in particular at issue for one
> >> particular defamation lawsuit) in an effort to pressure some ISP's
> >> to change their business practices"
> >>
> >>Y = "Open Relays are a source for much spam"
> >>
> >>You are asserting that:
> >>
> >>1) One person lost a civil suit for X.
> >>
> >>2) This person therefore asserted X falsely (and maliciously), and so
> >> is a "court-proven liar".
> >>
> >>3) This "court-proven liar" also believes Y. (Which you've never
> >> proved, but OK, it seems likely).
> >>
> >>4) One or more people on the IETF list has also asserted Y. (During
> >> the discussion of E-mail Submission Between Independent
> >> Networks I-D).
> >>
> >>5) These people must also believe X is a good thing, and are therefore
> >> in the set of "court-proven liars".
> >>
> >>6) Therefore, Y is false.
> >>
> >>To see why your logical reasoning doesn't make any sense, try
> >>replacing Y with "The sky is blue".
> >>
> >>In any case, you keep talking about IETF "associating with
> >>court-proven liars", when at best all you can show is that there are
> >>some people in the IETF that have made assertions that also happen to
> >>align with statements made by various extreme elements of the
> >>anti-SPAM crowd. That is a very strange definition of "associating
> >>with". There are many people who are trying to prevent Spam on the
> >>Internet, using a wide variety of tactics. To say that all anti-spam
> >>folks would condone the practices that were at issue at that
> >>particular defamation lawsuit is not fair, not true, and not logical.
> >>
> >>But all of this is beside the point. Your e-mail postings have
> >>wandered so far afield from the original message chain regarding a
> >>particular I-D, and far afield from the IETF mailing list charter,
> >>which is why I issued you the warning.
> >>
> >>But I will suggest to you, outside of my scope as a mailing list
> >>sargeant-at-arms, that if your goal is to convince people, that toning
> >>down your rhetoric and attacking the position rather than the person,
> >>then you will be much more effective at trying to pursuade people to
> >>see your point of view.
> >>
> >>For example, if you had said that, "nonsense, I set up an open relay
> >>and I didn't notice any spammers using the open relay", at least that
> >>would be something that could be discussed in a rational fashion. I
> >>would have trouble beliving such a statement, given that my mailer
> >>logs show a huge number of spammers constantly trying to "knock at the
> >>door" and relay spam through my mailer (to non-existant e-mail
> >>addresses, to mailing lists, and out-and-out attempts to relay mail to
> >>users at other hosts), but at least we could have a technical
> >>discussion about whether or not my experience was typical or not.
> >>Instead, you go off on your riff about court-proven liars, which is
> >>simply not helpful to anyone, least of all to the argument that you
> >>were trying to make.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >> - Ted
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000