Pete sent me private mail on Wednesday first saying wanted to discuss,
and then saying he didn't want to discuss SMTP AUTH. That is why I cc'd
him on my discussion with John.
Today Pete sent me private mail saying one can't trust headers besides
your own. I sent Pete private mail back, pointing out the invalidity of
his assertion. Obviously, you can trust other headers, and you can
identify forged headers. Pete and John's assertion otherwise is wrong.
Given that John sent me two previous messages, and avoided direct
questions on experience tracking abusers, but included generally his
resume involving standards, I think I have been setup on the issue of his
experience catching abusers. They protest too much.
I note that in the final (of 3) private response where John *finally*
reveals his experiences tracking abusers, he *still* avoids the issue of
cost associated with his experiences. He doesn't indicate when "his ISP
days" were. This all could have been avoided if John had substantiated
his experiences in the first place instead sending his resume about
standards body experiences, and other experiences, as I correctly noted,
that were irrelevant.
It all seems to be a diversion from the question of relevance. John still
haven't answered those questions, but has been very upset by being pressed
for details to backup his assertions about the expense and difficulty of
tracking abusers. My experience has been that once Law Enforcement is
involved, this is a relatively easy and cheap task. Even if John's
experiences were that it was difficult and expensive at some time in the
past, it doesn't mean that it is today.
--Dean
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 5/30/03 at 6:24 PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
So far, you haven't sent anything (despite a very impressive resume)
that seems to be relevant experience in tracking abusers.
For some reason, Dean decided to start Cc'ing his private mail
conversation with John to me (I'm not sure exactly why), but because
of that, I was privy to the e-mail in question and can't let the
above statement pass.
Dean's above statement is patently false. John did provide (for
Dean's reference, in message
<152050487(_dot_)1054196854(_at_)p3(_dot_)JCK(_dot_)COM>)
absolutely relevant experience in tracking abusers in the mail to
which he refers.
Given the large number of other false statements and invalid
arguments in Dean's messages to this list, both on issues of
substance and with regard to his personal attacks on John, I have
decided not to engage with Dean publicly, though I have sent him
private mail pointing out at least one of his invalid arguments. I
suggest others might also benefit from subjecting Dean's messages to
careful scrutiny; I have found them lacking in factual information
and quite misleading.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102