I haven't repeatedly (or at all) defamed anyone.
You haven't answered the question. The answer you gave was irrelevant to
the question, and doesn't support your wrong assertion that open relays
allow one to send anonymous email without the IP address of the sender.
I think that I am the one being defamed, since you repeated question my
credibility while avoiding the question.
And I also would like to initiate a formal complaint.
You should answer the question, and quit complaining that you are being
put in the spot to answer it.
--Dean
On Fri, 30 May 2003, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 30 May, 2003 14:09 -0400 Dean Anderson
<dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
And John has obviously never been involved in a Law
Enforcement request. But I have. Private emails to him seem
to confirm this, or at least he didn't indicate anything to
the contrary. While he may have been working on SMTP
protocols for 30 years, he obviously hasn't been involved in
trackig abuse of various sorts, and has no idea of whether
this is expensive or difficult.
Dean, private emails to me didn't raise the issue of Law
Enforcement requests, so, no I "didn't indicate anything to the
contrary (I note that I didn't "indicate to the contrary" about
eating babies three times a week either). But, yes, I've been
involved in them, as well as in very small group discussions
with FBI personnel about what is and is not feasible to request
and monitor. More important, some of those private exchanges
explained to you, in some detail (even by my normally
long-winded standards), about my involvement in abuse handling
and tracing at front-line, management, and training levels, as
well as my involvement in very large scale email provisioning
and operation. I also, fairly patiently, explained to you that
I had been involved in a number of standardization efforts
--both policy-level and in the trenches-- quite different from
SMTP, and about my involvement in those and other areas on the
development, deployment, operational, and procurement sides as
well as standards development.
I'm not insulted, because I've been around the IETF and other
areas long enough to have developed a pretty thick skin about
this sort of stuff. But I wish you would stop repeating this
(to use your term) nonsense about what I do and don't know and
have and haven't done. It is, at best, a waste of everyone
else's time.
Indeed, I think it has gone on about long enough. Harald, of
whomever is responsible for the IETF list, Dean has repeatedly
attempted to defame my character and experience, despite (and
after) having been supplied ample detail to refute his claims,
assumptions, and accusations (I will supply copies of the
relevant correspondence to you on request). That is against the
rules for the IETF list as I understand them. Would you please
initiate the appropriate action to formally warn him and, if the
practice persists, suspend posting rights?
john