Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson
To: Theodore Ts'o
Cc: Brian E Carpenter ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.
It shows that Ted can't stick to the argument at hand, nor can he even
correctly restate the assertions I made.
Inline
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, 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"
I didn't assert X. Ted just made that up.
> > Y = "Open Relays are a source for much spam"
I asserted that Y is false on the IETF list during discussion of an RFC
containing this claim. Neither open nor even closed relays are a source
of anything at all: spam or non-spam. But we are not discussing the truth
of Y now. While the current subject resulted from that discussion of Y on
the IETF list, we are NOW discussing whether the IETF should associate
with court-proven liars, and whether Alvestrand made an ad hominem attack
calling me irritating.
The correct answers are: "No, the IETF shouldn't associate with the
court-proven liars", and Carpenter should make assurances that this won't
happen. And Carpenter should redress plain violations of the code of
conduct which is his responsibility.
> > You are asserting that:
> >
> > 1) One person lost a civil suit for X.
That isn't true either. You just can't seem to get your facts straight,
even after _repeatedly_ being told to check your facts. Once is an honest
mistake, but two and three times is just incompetence, or misleading, or
outright lying. In the ORBS cases, the ISPs so listed did not operate open
relays. Brown simply did not like them because they were competitors. It
had nothing to do with "pressure", except perhaps competitive pressure.
> > 2) This person therefore asserted X falsely (and maliciously), and so
> > is a "court-proven liar".
Wrong again (2 counts):
1) This person did not assert X. Brown asserted that ISPs had open relays
that in fact did not have open relays.
2) But this does not make them a court-proven liar. They are a
"court-proven liar" because they've been proven in court to "knowingly
make false statements". Its particularly relevant here because the false
statements were about open relays.
> > 3) This "court-proven liar" also believes Y. (Which you've never
> > proved, but OK, it seems likely).
I made no such assertion. What the liar believes is irrelevant. Its what
is being proposed to the IETF that is relevant. The IETF proposal takes Y
as a given, even though its plainly not true, and the data offered as
proof is based on statements from court-proven liars and their associates
and on false assumptions.
> > 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).
Two people (Tony Finch and Doug Royer) made this claim. Finch's beliefs
were based on wrong assumptions about the meaning of "relay denied"
messages in his logs. Finch reported a volume of about 1% of this messages
compared with total mail volume. However, this is accounted for by
non-spammer roaming users seeking open relay services. Finch's assumption
that they are spammers is false.
Royer mentioned SORBS as a source for his data. Royer also stated
incorrectly that all spam blocked by SORBS is "open relay". But this too
is not true, by SORBS description of what it blocks (open proxies). No
other sources for the RFC statements were identified. There remains no
credible sources for this statement in the draft. All sources for Y have
been discredited.
> > 5) These people must also believe X is a good thing, and are therefore
> > in the set of "court-proven liars".
No. They knowingly associate with court-proven liars, and so their
integrity and honesty is degraded as a result and is similarly
untrustworthy. Likewise, if the IETF associates with dishonest,
disreputable people, its integrity and reputation will be harmed as a
result.
> > 6) Therefore, Y is false.
No. Y is false because relays don't source anything (spam or not-spam),
and the data that claims they do is based on 1) the statements of
court-proven liars and associates, and 2) those others (ala Finch) have
made false assumptions about the meaning of "relay denied".
> > To see why your logical reasoning doesn't make any sense, try
> > replacing Y with "The sky is blue".
You have simply made up a wrong argument, attributed it to me, and
disagreed with it. The logical faults were introduced as a result of your
own lack of ability, competence, or honesty to correctly state my
position.
I have not gone afield of the draft. Lies about technical merits of the
draft are plainly not irrelevant to the technical merits of the draft. The
draft says that open relays promote spam. But that is false and there is
no factual basis for that statement.
I wonder the consequences that the IETF cannot hold certain of its members
(Alvestrand, Vixie, etc) to the IETF code of conduct. Plainly, certain
participants of the IETF associate with court-proven liars, and seek to
suppress the fact of their court records on the subject of open relays
during discussion of a draft containing statements about open relays.
Their motives are plain. However, it would be unfortunate for the IETF to
associate with such disreputable people.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000